But it's all relative and the up side is that you are getting the effect of a 300 at the price of a 200 and .... a cheaper option than FF and longer lens for many wildlife toggs.
Yes Tim that's another way of looking at it and very valid points. Much better to get the scene you want with a 300mm lens on a full frame than a 200mm on an APS-C ....... the down side of the cropped sensor camera
I think mole2K is right in that you just need to experiment with whatever line-up you have and see what you can achieve, if slow shutter speeds are important in what you do. But getting back to using a 10-20 ...... I know I do struggle at anything much lower that 1/30th and attempting 1/15th at 10mm (employing jpd300's crop factor formula thingybobby) would be very hit and miss on results. I'd say that anywhere below 1/30th and you start to struggle whatever the lens.
I disagree that cropped cameras need a compensation factor placed on the 1 / focal length rule of thumb ... there is no difference in actual movement seen between FF and crop. The amount of movement recorded due to camera movement is the same for both. The fact that you may need to enlarge a crop sensor capture more to get the image you want is another (valid) issue entirely
Isn't it all so bloomin frustrating and interesting at the same time
Hi Hoppy,
Your compact is a completely different format and can’t be compared to a 35mm format (D)SLR, as you pointed out above. The reasons you have IS on the compact are (a) to cater for the relative clumsiness of the average-joe owner of such a camera and (b) as a selling feature over non- IS cameras at the same price point.
The OP is talking about 35mm format only and the only difference we have introduced in subsequent posts is the question of reduced size of the capture area from a full frame sensor.
If you had a big circular hole cut in the wall of your house into which you had fitted a rectangular window frame and were standing there looking out, you would see a certain scene. If the house was moving slightly then the scene through the window frame would appear to move a little. If you now fitted a smaller rectangular window frame into the space you would see a smaller part of the scene. If the house was moving in the same way and everything else stayed the same then the movement you perceived in the reduced scene that you now see is exactly the same as that same reduced part of the scene was moving was when looking at it through the larger window frame.
Nothing else has changed, the camera and lens design is still the same, the movement due to shake is the same. We are just viewing a smaller area of the same scene under the same circumstances. Tim is right in that of course with less of a pixel count you may have to enlarge more with APS-C to get the end print you want and that would enlarge any captured movement blur. So anything you can do to reduce (e.g. faster shutter speeds) this is beneficial ….. but that is true of photography in general where sharpness is important.
Well that’s my take on it and I’ll stick with it. Good discussion though, keeps the old grey matter ticking over and reviewing what you think is always good. Anyways ….. I think we’ve wandered off the OP question a bit, blame me
Cheers, Dave B.
the bits I've highlighted above in bold are correct, so I guess you're kind of contradicting yourself!
No I'm not contradicting myself Hoppy the bold bits are essentially two separate issues. Maybe if this was a conversation instead of typed words we (or I) could get this across better. I'm not saying that a faster shutter does not give sharper results, it always will. I'm just saying that there is no such thing as the crop factor to be added to shutter speeds. The 1.5x applies only to focal lengths. If you wanted a factor to give a safety net you could use any number you like.
Anyway, it's a nice day here in west country land so I'm just off out to make the most of that rest of it. Stay happy, keep clicking, Dave B
