Shutter speed and megapixels and diffraction
Apr 12, 2020 05:22:46 #
This is confusing me and I’d be grateful for some help
A pro photographer told me that the higher the number of megapixels on a sensor the higher the shutter speed needed to get sharp photos and the earlier that diffraction sets in. The sensor on my camera is 41MP and seen examples where diffraction has set in at F8.
A video by the Northrups showed that the denser pixels did defract earlier but the extra detail gave better results overall.
The 60+MP full frame sensors on the market I just can’t see the sense or logic
Help and keep safe.
A pro photographer told me that the higher the number of megapixels on a sensor the higher the shutter speed needed to get sharp photos and the earlier that diffraction sets in. The sensor on my camera is 41MP and seen examples where diffraction has set in at F8.
A video by the Northrups showed that the denser pixels did defract earlier but the extra detail gave better results overall.
The 60+MP full frame sensors on the market I just can’t see the sense or logic
Help and keep safe.
Apr 12, 2020 06:33:02 #
It is confusing for sure. Others here will chime in but, for me, the biggest difference that rising MPs make is in the detail within the image. See; https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501318-1.html.
Beyond that, good photographing technique is your best friend for quality images.
Beyond that, good photographing technique is your best friend for quality images.
Apr 12, 2020 06:36:00 #
I my experience and research diffraction typically is detectable @ f/8. Beyond that I have stunning pics taken on my 6mp camera that rival those I have taken with my 24mp camera. I just wanna have fun!!
Apr 12, 2020 06:43:40 #
I think the megapixel race is just marketing. Manufacturers want to leap frog the competition. I'll bet that the engineers at the camera companies would like to stop the megapixel race while the marketing people just want more.
I did this test a while back with my 16MP Nikon D7000. The upper photo was shot at f/11, the middle photo at f/29, and the lower one at f/36. You can see the softness increasing because of diffraction.
I did this test a while back with my 16MP Nikon D7000. The upper photo was shot at f/11, the middle photo at f/29, and the lower one at f/36. You can see the softness increasing because of diffraction.
Apr 12, 2020 06:54:11 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
I have some great pics from an old 6 mp Olympus P&S that I purchased back around the year 2000. It amazed me how well the light from a lighthouse pic looked when I zoomed in on the computer.
Apr 12, 2020 07:00:59 #
Apr 12, 2020 07:15:32 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
tcthome wrote:
You definitely have to be on your game (shooting technique) with these higher MP.
Why?
Apr 12, 2020 07:29:19 #
I think part of the confusion here stems from the misuse of the term "diffraction".
Diffraction is an optical term, relating to the way light rays may be "bent" more than desired due to an aperture that is too small. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of film or density of photosites onto which the light is falling.
The shutter speed-MP count thing has to do with the resolution of the chip, and the concept that a slower shutter speed on a high-MP camera might lead to a certain amount of "blurriness" because the tighter array of photo sites in the high MP camera might be able to detect movement that a lower density array would not. But IMHO that is a big case of "might" - it sounds kind of intuitive but as a practical matter I don't know if it means anything. Recall the "rule of thumb" for 35MM film - the slowest shutter speed to use handheld ought to be 1 over the focal length of the lens - though plenty of shooters are able to get sharp shots below that threshold (or so they claim). Meanwhile, image stabilization technology has taken it a step (or, a few stops, to use a pun) further. So maybe the concept that higher shutter speeds are "necessary" when using high MP cameras is valid - maybe - but with IS muddying the waters does it matter?
Diffraction is an optical term, relating to the way light rays may be "bent" more than desired due to an aperture that is too small. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of film or density of photosites onto which the light is falling.
The shutter speed-MP count thing has to do with the resolution of the chip, and the concept that a slower shutter speed on a high-MP camera might lead to a certain amount of "blurriness" because the tighter array of photo sites in the high MP camera might be able to detect movement that a lower density array would not. But IMHO that is a big case of "might" - it sounds kind of intuitive but as a practical matter I don't know if it means anything. Recall the "rule of thumb" for 35MM film - the slowest shutter speed to use handheld ought to be 1 over the focal length of the lens - though plenty of shooters are able to get sharp shots below that threshold (or so they claim). Meanwhile, image stabilization technology has taken it a step (or, a few stops, to use a pun) further. So maybe the concept that higher shutter speeds are "necessary" when using high MP cameras is valid - maybe - but with IS muddying the waters does it matter?
Apr 12, 2020 07:34:36 #
See this description of diffraction as it relates to photography: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Notice that it mentions nothing about the camera sensor megapixels or lens shutter speed as producing diffraction.
The physical phenomenon of diffraction has to do with aperture size.
Notice that it mentions nothing about the camera sensor megapixels or lens shutter speed as producing diffraction.
The physical phenomenon of diffraction has to do with aperture size.
Hammer wrote:
This is confusing me and I’d be grateful for some ... (show quote)
Apr 12, 2020 07:49:50 #
cameraf4 wrote:
It is confusing for sure. Others here will chime in but, for me, the biggest difference that rising MPs make is in the detail within the image. See; https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501318-1.html.
Beyond that, good photographing technique is your best friend for quality images.
Beyond that, good photographing technique is your best friend for quality images.
You left out all editing programs that really make the difference.
Apr 12, 2020 08:04:59 #
Hammer wrote:
This is confusing me and I’d be grateful for some ... (show quote)
A couple of half-truths and a lot of confusion.
Diffraction is a reality, and it is always there. It has to do with the aperture/focal length, image viewing distance, print size/magnification, image contrast, and the ability of the camera to resolve. So higher MP cameras will likely show the degradation of image sharpness at larger apertures, but in the big picture it will be less noticeable - a 41mp image from a full frame camera will not need to be blown up as much as a 20mp image from a 1" sensor. So that alone will show a bit less diffraction. When looking at a print, if you are up close you may see diffraction, but if you move away from the print it magically goes away - actually your eyes will not be able to actually see the softness.
Shutter speed only enters into this discussion peripherally, and it has more to do with sharpness, camera stability and movement, and the small vibrations that can be eliminated with a short enough shutter speed, but it has zero to do with diffraction. A solid tripod and/or image stabilization at slower shutter speeds can help that type of image softness, but neither will affect diffraction softness.
Apr 12, 2020 08:15:11 #
anotherview wrote:
See this description of diffraction as it relates to photography: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Notice that it mentions nothing about the camera sensor megapixels or lens shutter speed as producing diffraction.
The physical phenomenon of diffraction has to do with aperture size.
Notice that it mentions nothing about the camera sensor megapixels or lens shutter speed as producing diffraction.
The physical phenomenon of diffraction has to do with aperture size.
That article does relate diffraction to the size of the photosite, which comes from how many are crammed into a sensor and how big the sensor is.
Apr 12, 2020 08:18:44 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Hammer wrote:
A pro photographer told me that the higher the number of megapixels on a sensor the higher the shutter speed needed to get sharp photos ...
Nonsense! Common sense ought to tell you that if the camera is properly stabilized, the shutter speed is immaterial.
Apr 12, 2020 08:29:10 #
As I understand the article, diffraction occurs in relation to the aperture opening. The camera sensor detects and records this diffraction.
bleirer wrote:
That article does relate diffraction to the size of the photosite, which comes from how many are crammed into a sensor and how big the sensor is.
Apr 12, 2020 08:31:58 #
I simply cannot understand how a "professional" could say that a camera with a high number of megapixels needs a high shutter speed for sharp images. What any camera needs, regardless of megapixels, is sound photographic techniques.
Refraction is a term we all know but many of us are not afraid us. It is dependent of the aperture in use but with the right sharpening technique and using reasonable lens openings I would say and this is only an estimate, up to f22 all should be fine. We do not use apertures beyond f22 that I know of with our dSLR cameras.
I had a Nikon D2H some time ago, a professional camera with only 4.1 megapixels. The files amazed me when I enlarged them. The resolution and details in those enlargements were simply awesome.
Today I use two cameras, one with 24 megapixels and another with 16 and my eyes cannot see the difference when I enlarge the files.
Refraction is a term we all know but many of us are not afraid us. It is dependent of the aperture in use but with the right sharpening technique and using reasonable lens openings I would say and this is only an estimate, up to f22 all should be fine. We do not use apertures beyond f22 that I know of with our dSLR cameras.
I had a Nikon D2H some time ago, a professional camera with only 4.1 megapixels. The files amazed me when I enlarged them. The resolution and details in those enlargements were simply awesome.
Today I use two cameras, one with 24 megapixels and another with 16 and my eyes cannot see the difference when I enlarge the files.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.