Do more pixels mean sacrificing flexibility?

[Cindy-Clicks]

I own a T3i and it is litterally falling apart on me after just 19 months, due to the sheer volume of photos I take.  I decided to get an upgrade but with the new 24 pixel camera I have,  I have had nothing but problems from the start.  With the T3i,  I frequently shoot with my Tamron 28-300 zoom and  I can consistently take  beautifully clear shots at 1/13 sec at 300mm, hand held.  

I have been told that when you increase pixels the camera gets pickier and needs a tripod.  The way I shoot, I find a tripod to be a great hinderance.  I find it difficult to believe that a more expensive camera will do less for me than the T3i.  I would like to know what your thoughts are.  I will take this camera back and buy another T3i body if that is what I need to do.   I show my work in galleries and was hoping to get less pixillation on larger prints.  I might want to get the new 16-300 lens I hear Tamron is coming out with, if I stay with the T3i. 

[MikeSowsun]

The 70D has a pixel density similar to the Pentax K-3 and that is what started this whole thread. 

Higher resolution usually means higher pixel density, which some people say means more motion blur. Some people say you need to shoot at higher shutter speeds to compensate for the higher pixel density. 

High megapixel cameras are sometimes seen as "soft" because a similar sized crop from a smaller megapixel camera will look sharper. 

More info here: Hand-holding limits and pixel density

[Cindy-Clicks]

That is very interesting because I am almost 59 and I was shooting ice all winter at speeds of 1/10 and 1/13 hand-held at 300mm and getting this kind of result.  Of course this image is only 150 resolution because of the size limit on this site.

[ebiggs1]

It is not sensor size, more pixels, that is the important criteria here but pixel size.

An APS-C (23.7x15.7) sensor that has 18 MP has smaller pixels than a FF (36x24)sensor that has 18 MP.

Think of a small bucket that is full of water. Now a larger bucket that is ½ full of water. The larger bucket can have more water in volume than the smaller one even though it is only half full. A larger bucket will hold more water. Now substitute the water for light protons. Given two sensors with equal numbers of pixels, and each with lenses of the same f/ratio, the larger sensor/larger pixels, collects more photons yet has the same spatial resolution.

My 1D Mk III collects 19 times the light protons as a popular, very much higher MP count, P&S camera for example.

The pixel size in digital cameras also affects dynamic range.

Now consider a given print size The image must be enlarged from the small image in camera sensor. For example, say you want to make

8 x 10 inch prints.  If your sensor is like the above popular P&S one would need about a 36 times enlargement.  Such extreme enlargement would magnify any lens imperfections, and vibration during the exposure.  The larger sensor of my 1D Mark III, with its APS-H size sensor, needs only a 10.6 times enlargement (actually making an 8 x 12 print), or 3 times less enlargement of lens imperfections and vibration than the P&S.

Now these are the facts.  If they make a difference to you in real world photography is up to you not me.  But the “fact” remains the FF, or larger sensor/pixel camera is going to produce sharper images than a crop sensor camera is.  All other factors being the same.

And remember it is the final print that matters, doesn't it?

[Skirball]

While all that's true, the situation that they are discussing here actually is about pixel density, not pitch.  The OP hasn't expressed any concern over DR and/or noise.  There's a populace  of the internet photographer theorists that believe that the increased density will result in a marked increase in movement blur, thus higher density sensors require faster shutter speeds at any given FL/speed.  That is what the OP is concerned about.

That said, if it was me, I’d be more concerned about reducing noise, so I could up my ISO, and therefore up my shutter speeds.

[TCampbell]

There is a relationship between focal length and shutter speed with respect to hand-held photography.   The relationship can be expressed as a "guideline" which has some caveats and I'll get to those after explaining the simple version of the guideline.

For a "full frame" camera (e.g. 6D, 5D series, or 1Ds & 1D X) the relationship says that with "proper" hand-holding technique (so this applies to someone who is actually trying to be steady and knows how to take advantage of techniquest that make them more likely to be steady) then the minimum shutter speed should be the INVERSE of the focal length.  

In other words.... with a 300mm focal length, you should use a minimum shutter speed of 1/300th.

For a crop-frame camera, you have to multiply the focal length by the crop factor before taking the inverse.  A T3i (actually ALL "Rebel" series bodies as well as all bodies with 2 numeric digits in the model number (e.g. 50D, 60D, 70D), as well as the 7D) has a crop factor of 1.6.  You have to muliply the focal length by 1.6 and then take the inverse.  

Using this example with a 300mm focal length, it would be 300 X 1.6 = 480.  So 1/480th (but as there is no "1/480th" sec speed, you'd have to round that to 1/500th.

None of this assumes the lens has image stabilization.  But if the lens DOES have image stabilization (and, btw, image stabilization is NOT a guarantee of success... it merely tips the odds in your favor) many lenses will provide 2 to 3 stops of stabilization.  Those are stops of shutter speed.  Some lenses can offer 4 stops of improvement... but again, there are caveats.

The caveat is that the camera tends to be extremely success of 1 or 2 stops, fairly successful at 3 stops, and moderately successful at 4 stops.  They aren't all equal.

To translate to a real-world case:  If we use our 1/500th sec example, 1 stop slower means you can shoot at 1/250th, 2 stops slower means 1/125th, 3 stops slower means 1/60th, and 4 stops slower means 1/30th.  (1/15th would be 5 stops slower and beyond the ability of the IS system to offer much (if any) help.

But then I also caveated that this is a guideline based on how steady an average person is able to be when they actually try.

If standing... this means you spread your feet somewhat apart to a wide-stance and make sure your body center of gravity is centered above your feet (no leaning forward, sideways, etc.)    The camera has to be "supported" by your left palm (underhand grip) and your left arm should be tucked in toward your stomach so that your arm is naturally 'bracing" the camera in position and doesn't require that your muscles try to hold your arm still.  

If there's something to lean on... lean on it.  The more a truely sold structure is supporting you rather than your own muscle strength, the steadier you'll be.

As this is a guideline... some people are naturally able to be a bit more steady than others.  Some people are just a bit jittery (perhaps too much caffiene?) and holding their hands solidly is more of a challenge.

As for more pixels...  generally most people don't use all the pixels they have.  There's a limit to how many pixels can be helpful depending on the focal ratio in use.  These are laws of physics... there is no getting around them (it's not a matter of product quality.)   You can research "diffraction limits" to understand why this is the case (and the laws of physics governing this assume "perfect" optics -- so it's not a matter of having a good enough lens or good enough camera.)

Canon's higher end cameras have more duarable shutter and mirror mechanisms.  The mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) for those shutters is significantly higher than it is for entry-level DSLRs.  It is possible to have a shutter replaced (you'd have to contact Canon support directly for that.)

[Cindy-Clicks]

I have always been a rule breaker.  I just want a camera than can handle my style.  

[hsbn]

You are truly a genius. You made me feel really bad :). You have been photographing for less than 2 years (19 months you said). You use consumer camera and consumer lens. Also you shoot at 300mm often with 1/13s speed hand held and got result that been display in gallery all over the US and have been recognized internationally. You are truly a rule breaker.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Because I am an artist.  We are cut from a different cloth and I can shoot something interesting in almost anyplace I happen to be.  I see all the details that others miss.  It is almost overwhelming at times.  But this is my calling.    I have gotten pretty good at using Photoshop to my best advantage too.  The computer screen is my canvas.

https://www.facebook.com/cindyvondranphotography

[Skirball]

Lol!

[Skirball]

---

@MikeSowsun wrote:

The 70D has a pixel density similar to the Pentax K-3 and that is what started this whole thread. 

Higher resolution usually means higher pixel density, which some people say means more motion blur. Some people say you need to shoot at higher shutter speeds to compensate for the higher pixel density. 

High megapixel cameras are sometimes seen as "soft" because a similar sized crop from a smaller megapixel camera will look sharper. 

More info here: Hand-holding limits and pixel density

---

That's a highly debatable topic, at best.  At modest differences in pixel density, such as between a 18 MP and 20 MP sensor of relatively similar size, the impact isn't likely going to be noticeable unless you're comparing pixels.  If it’s noticeable at all.  At substantial differences in pixel density, the difference, if any, would be negated by downsampling when viewing the final image; comparing pixels of substantially different resolutions has no practicality.