Paulus Posted May 8, 2017 Share #81 Posted May 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) To go in this direction even further: I shoot a lot with 300mm lenses. In my experience I get less blur at 1/2000 of a second than at 1/250 and this is with monopod. I can see this better if I crop these photos. Of course this also depends on the subject which is shot. But in general, 300mm +1/2000 less blurr. So I think everything I should shoot with a 1,0 75mm with a monopod at 1/2000 and crop this files to the same subject size as the initial 300mm shot would give me -more or less te same- less blur than with a 1/250 without a monopod. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 Hi Paulus, Take a look here 75mm Noctilux-M on the way. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Exodies Posted May 8, 2017 Share #82 Posted May 8, 2017 Maybe. But that's a different issue.There's a relation between print size and megapixels. And there's another relation between print size and sharpness. You mustn't confuse them. In particular, these two relations DO NOT establish a third, between megapixels and sharpness; that's a mental short-circuit and common misconception. No, it wouldn't be useful, because people wouldn't understand it. After all, two posts above yours, NB23 just did what you're asking for.. I'm interested in the difference between the streak being within a pixel and the streak overlapping pixels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 8, 2017 Share #83 Posted May 8, 2017 I recently acquired the APO-Elmarit 180 R for my M10. Talking about OIS, I am completely flabbergasted how sharp the images are from handheld captures, on a camera that was not conceived for this long and heavy lens. I don't know how they did it, but on the R8 and R9 this lens was also already famous for its IQ without tri- or monopod. Maybe it's the internal focussing, which means that the lens remains always as long as it is, no matter if it's infinity or close-up. So I would say that the need for OIS also depends on how the lens is built ergonomically. We can't speculate on that I'd say Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted May 8, 2017 Share #84 Posted May 8, 2017 To turn this discussion on its head, I shoot quite a lot of deliberate motion blur images. Should I use a higher MPixel or lower MPixel camera to do so ? It depends on the size of the motion. If you aren't waving your camera about far enough while the shutter is open then the light won't fall on different pixels so there will be no motion blur. "Far enough" is a function of pixel size. Pixel size is a function of megapixel count for a given sensor size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 8, 2017 Share #85 Posted May 8, 2017 Motion blur, as captured at resolution x, and captured at resolution 1/4x (e.g. 96 mpixels vs. 24, or 40 mpixels vs. 10). Of course the blur is the same size on either sensor - but a lower-resolution sensor will not register most of it. Anyone who does want to make wall-sized prints, and buys a very-high-megapixel camera to do so, should be aware that they'll need more care in avoiding camera shake, if they want every last detail to be sharp. For those of us who don't want to make wall-sized prints (including me), it is not a big deal - but there is a significant difference between "a big deal" and "factually correct." Small facts are just as true as big facts. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! @pgk - well there is a difference between intentional motion streaks, 10s of pixels in size, which any camera can capture, and unintentional "jiggle" blurs. But if you want creative motion blur in your shots, I'd stay away from one-pixel cameras. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! @pgk - well there is a difference between intentional motion streaks, 10s of pixels in size, which any camera can capture, and unintentional "jiggle" blurs. But if you want creative motion blur in your shots, I'd stay away from one-pixel cameras. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271737-75mm-noctilux-m-on-the-way/?do=findComment&comment=3271157'>More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 8, 2017 Share #86 Posted May 8, 2017 @pgk - well there is a difference between intentional motion streaks, 10s of pixels in size, which any camera can capture, and unintentional "jiggle" blurs. But if you want creative motion blur in your shots, I'd stay away from one-pixel cameras. Will do. But if I had a two pixel camera, how much motion would it take in terms of % of pixel to be detectable I wonder? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 8, 2017 Share #87 Posted May 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends on how you define "detectable." If you photograph a tiny enough point of light, such that the image of that point falls on exactly one pixel, then you'd get a black pixel (background) next to a white pixel (image of the light source). Shake the camera around, and you'd end up with two gray pixels (probably different grays). But is that "detectable" as motion blur - or simply a subject with two different tones (or maybe just noise)? It certainly would not be a "streak." You kinda have to have something surrounding the point, that it can be "blurred into," to detect a blur. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem probably has some role in this, but I'd guess you might just be able to recognize a streaky "jiggle" of a single point with a 16-pixel camera (4x4 array), assuming no AA filter, no debayerizing, and an absolutely perfect lens. It's basically - you can't blur this period . unless you include some white background around it to blur into. Attached at the end of this line... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! .....is a ridiculously small 16-pixel image of a black point on a white background - and the same point motion-blurred 3 pixels. The blurring is evident (downloaded, and blown up to 200% or more) but it is only barely (maybe - if you squint real hard and have a good imagination) recognizable as a movement blur, as opposed to any other random fuzziness. Really, it is not a picture with a streaky detail - the whole picture is one big (or tiny) streak. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! .....is a ridiculously small 16-pixel image of a black point on a white background - and the same point motion-blurred 3 pixels. The blurring is evident (downloaded, and blown up to 200% or more) but it is only barely (maybe - if you squint real hard and have a good imagination) recognizable as a movement blur, as opposed to any other random fuzziness. Really, it is not a picture with a streaky detail - the whole picture is one big (or tiny) streak. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271737-75mm-noctilux-m-on-the-way/?do=findComment&comment=3271205'>More sharing options...
01af Posted May 8, 2017 Share #88 Posted May 8, 2017 "Far enough" is a function of pixel size. Another common misconception. Even sub-pixel movements will cause motion blur and reduce perceived sharpness—to the same degree (at the same magnification) as on a higher-resolving sensor where the same movement would stretch across several (smaller) pixels. ... but a lower-resolution sensor will not register most of it. You should have added another pair of high- and low-resolution images, but without the motion blur—so that there were four images to compare (hi-res blurred, lo-res blurred, hi-res sharp, lo-res sharp). Then, comparing the two low-resolution images, it would become obvious that the loss of sharpness through motion blur is the same as the the high-resolution pair. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 8, 2017 Share #89 Posted May 8, 2017 OK. Both resolutions without blur. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271737-75mm-noctilux-m-on-the-way/?do=findComment&comment=3271238'>More sharing options...
adan Posted May 8, 2017 Share #90 Posted May 8, 2017 Another common misconception. So you say - but can you demonstrate it? Why should anyone take your word for it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 8, 2017 Share #91 Posted May 8, 2017 Depends on how you define "detectable." An interesting point. Its a bit like depth of field; it all depends...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 8, 2017 Share #92 Posted May 8, 2017 Opinions ≠ proven facts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 8, 2017 Share #93 Posted May 8, 2017 So you say—but can you demonstrate it? You demonstrated it just six minutes earlier 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted May 8, 2017 Share #94 Posted May 8, 2017 Big or small pixel will register the same movement. Detla 3200 registers the same movement as delta 100. Both show exactly the same degree of movement. There's no more science incolved than just that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 8, 2017 Share #95 Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) Oh for heavens sake. Yeah, imagine how devastated you would be when an editor said your photo of a winning football goal was unacceptable because the the image wasn't 24 megapixels shot at 1/4000th of a second. NOT. A photo of my mother's ashes being spread in the Colorado mountains by her Great Granddaughter. 1/4000th second. M9. Good enough. And that with the disrespected 35mm Summilux V2. Edited May 8, 2017 by pico 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 8, 2017 Share #96 Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) Blur can have more than the one reason of movement. Which of the two films would one chose to see if it is a so-so lens or a very good one? Same with a tiniest movement imo. One would say (with the 3200 Delta processed not by you but by me): "No, it's not the movement - it is blurry because of the lens" or "No it is not the movement - the film is responsible for details being lost in the snow-ball sized grains" Edited May 8, 2017 by tri Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted May 9, 2017 Share #97 Posted May 9, 2017 I love the progression of this thread. Classic logic in action. A new fast lens is on the way -> would be too big for an M -> The OOF areas would be no good -> I'm going to see p the 1.4 -> No one makes good photos with an M anyway and there aren't good M bodies either-> The SL is the body -> Tripods shouldn't be used -> High resolution cameras need a tripod -> High resolution cameras are only good if you print big -> lets talk about motion blur -> ... (I'm sure I missed some key developments along the way) 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 9, 2017 Share #98 Posted May 9, 2017 So, the 75 Noctilux (if it is a Noctilux, or if it is a 75/1.4 and some other Noctilux, or is it a Noctilux at all) is a good lens? Or have we bagged it already? Presumably it will have fabulous resolving power ... I'm not sure why, but as sensor resolution has increased and resolving power of lenses improved, I have found that sharp images are harder to procure - is that because I'm pixel peeping? What sized prints should I make with the 75 Noctilux on an A7r2? The pictures I took with my A7r and Leica M lenses were largely disappointing, and for some reason images taken with my D800e didn't seem as sharp as those taken with my more modest M9 (even though the Sony and the D800e had 36MP sensors ... Apparently I imaged it all. Wake me up when Leica releases something. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 9, 2017 Share #99 Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) I love the progression of this thread. Classic logic in action. A new fast lens is on the way -> would be too big for an M -> The OOF areas would be no good -> I'm going to see p the 1.4 -> No one makes good photos with an M anyway and there aren't good M bodies either-> The SL is the body -> Tripods shouldn't be used -> High resolution cameras need a tripod -> High resolution cameras are only good if you print big -> lets talk about motion blur -> ... Hey, it's the Leica Forum. Second only to the Wizards of Unseen University for introducing argumentative drift to a conversation..... Edited May 9, 2017 by adan 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted May 9, 2017 Share #100 Posted May 9, 2017 Oh for heavens sake. Yeah, imagine how devastated you would be when an editor said your photo of a winning football goal was unacceptable because the the image wasn't 24 megapixels shot at 1/4000th of a second. NOT. A photo of my mother's ashes being spread in the Colorado mountains by her Great Granddaughter. 1/4000th second. M9. Good enough. And that with the disrespected 35mm Summilux V2. Good enough? Knowing now what that is about, it's a beautiful image. Do technicalities trump content? Hardly. s-a 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.