Nikon D800 handheld - Is it me or the camera? :)

[Zang]

Hi all,

Lately, I have been taking pictures using 105mm AIS on my D800 and I noticed that I need to go with 1/150s or faster to be confident with the result. Anything below that is hit and miss in term of blurry images. What is your experience with the camera? Is 1.5 x relative shutter speed normal for that camera or is that my skills?

Cheers,
Zang

[longzoom]

The mirror box vibrations at speeds of 1/30 - 1/180 will deliver, sometime, such a result. This problem hunting Nikon models from F3, less so with F4, some with D800 - 810, less so with D850. Plus our mistakes, all of us are prone to it, less or more. Do not blame yourself! LZ

[Jack Dahlgren]

Hi all,

Lately, I have been taking pictures using 105mm AIS on my D800 and I noticed that I need to go with 1/150s or faster to be confident with the result. Anything below that is hit and miss in term of blurry images. What is your experience with the camera? Is 1.5 x relative shutter speed normal for that camera or is that my skills?

Cheers,
Zang

Higher density sensors show movement blur more than those with less density when viewed at 100%. This may be part of it if you are moving from a lower density sensor.

I know that care in holding the camera can make a very big difference so being careful about how you support the camera will make a positive impact.

[Nasos Kosmas]

I’ve got this lens since film days and shot with 1/125-250 iso 100
For decades I thought that is not a good lens, I’ve got the same blurry results you describe
Now days with D750 and z6 I got excellent results with a little lower than normal contrast
 just keep the speed higher than expected

[Zang]

The mirror box vibrations at speeds of 1/30 - 1/180 will deliver, sometime, such a result. This problem hunting Nikon models from F3, less so with F4, some with D800 - 810, less so with D850. Plus our mistakes, all of us are prone to it, less or more. Do not blame yourself! LZ

Good to hear your experience is similar to mine. I love the camera and will pay more attention to the vibration issue. If I can't lug the tripod around, I will sacrifice the ISO and use higher speed. Thanks for your feedback!

[Zang]

Higher density sensors show movement blur more than those with less density when viewed at 100%. This may be part of it if you are moving from a lower density sensor.

I know that care in holding the camera can make a very big difference so being careful about how you support the camera will make a positive impact.

I am aware of the relation between blur magnitude and the pixel density. By telling D800 is producing blurry images I meant its pictures are more blurry than those from my other camera with respect to the density, not at the pixel level. I believed I had pretty steady hands in the past from my first camera acquired in 1989 until I got D800 a few years back I think D300 is much less shaky. But yes, I am practicing holding D800. Feeling like I am learning to walk again LOL

[Zang]

I%u2019ve got this lens since film days and shot with 1/125-250 iso 100
For decades I thought that is not a good lens, I%u2019ve got the same blurry results you describe
Now days with D750 and z6 I got excellent results with a little lower than normal contrast
 just keep the speed higher than expected

I got this just 3 years ago and have not been using it much. I think 2.5 is usable but not stellar. From 2.8 the results are very good but all my Contax Zeiss lenses edge it in term of contrast and color rendition. Nikkor is smaller and more lightweight than Contax lenses, though. And yes, I ruined a bit of field portraits a few years ago when using it with D800. Thanks for the tip about speed. I will remember now.

[David H. Hartman]

Higher density sensors show movement blur more than those with less density when viewed at 100%. This may be part of it if you are moving from a lower density sensor.

I know that care in holding the camera can make a very big difference so being careful about how you support the camera will make a positive impact.

I found I could reduce the blurring of hand held photographs and loss of critical focus with my D800 and even my D2H if I braced myself against a solid object such as a kitchen counter or out doors against a cement wall.

With my D2H I found I could focus quite well using a 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor but body sway would blow the focus since the DoF was so shallow at f/1.2. Sitting quietly in a chair greatly increased my ability to hold critical focus.

At least for me if I'm free standing I need to stop down to cover the loss of critical focus caused by body sway.

Best,

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

I am aware of the relation between blur magnitude and the pixel density. By telling D800 is producing blurry images I meant its pictures are more blurry than those from my other camera with respect to the density, not at the pixel level. I believed I had pretty steady hands in the past from my first camera acquired in 1989 until I got D800 a few years back I think D300 is much less shaky. But yes, I am practicing holding D800. Feeling like I am learning to walk again LOL

The low pixel count of the D300 will easily hide the loss of image resolution that a 36MP or 45MP camera will easily reveal. This applies to lack of critical focus as well as camera or subject movement.

Best,

Dave

 I was leaning on a kitchen counter for support and tried to breathe with care....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_speedlight/15946176820/in/dateposted-public/

I was leaning on a wall. I blew the shot before by trying to take it free standing...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_speedlight/18697603922/in/dateposted-public/

I'm under no illusion that I have steady hands. A wide angle lens and especially a super wide angle lens helps considerably with hand holding.

Also in film days Kodak Tech Pan developed as a continuous tone film was unmerciful at revealing focus errors and camera or subject movement.

There is a component in camera vibration. Among Nikon cameras the F2, FE2 and FM2n were prone to camera vibration. The F3, F4s, F5 exhibited much lower camera vibration as tested with a laser pointer and a tripod mounted camera while viewing the dance of the red dot from the pointer at distance.

[ In the two examples linked above I may not have indicates how useless the shots I took free standing were. It was night and day! The free standing shots were that bad. ]

[Akira]

Zang, I would have to say that you have quite a steady hands.  When I used the last DSLR for me, D750, my safety zone with the 50mm lens was 1/100 and shorter.  If I would use a lens in the 85-105mm range on D800 with a denser sensor, my safety zone should be 1/250 and shorter.

So far as the DSLR is concerned, the safety zone is much faster than 1/(focal length) sec. which was the commonly believed during the film days.

[Zang]

The low pixel count of the D300 will easily hide the loss of image resolution that a 36MP or 45MP camera will easily reveal. This applies to lack of critical focus as well as camera or subject movement.

Dave, 12mpx vs 36mpx is less than 2 times of linear ratio The blurriness I was talking about for sure was greater than 2 pixels

Regarding leaning on solid objects, holding tree trunks was my top secret tactics (well not a secret here anymore) but I found myself in many occasions having my feet standing on two wobbling rocks in the middle of a stream fighting for balance.

[David H. Hartman]

So far as the DSLR is concerned, the safety zone is much faster than 1/(focal length) sec. which was the commonly believed during the film days.

I believe the 1/focal length rule went back to 35mm film of the '30s and was for small prints like 3x5 inch. In the '70s I didn't find 1/focal length good for Tri-X and 8x10 prints shot with a Nikon F or F2, at least not with my hands and particularly free standing.

Dave

[Zang]

Zang, I would have to say that you have quite a steady hands.  When I used the last DSLR for me, D750, my safety zone with the 50mm lens was 1/100 and shorter.  If I would use a lens in the 85-105mm range on D800 with a denser sensor, my safety zone should be 1/250 and shorter.

So far as the DSLR is concerned, the safety zone is much faster than 1/(focal length) sec. which was the commonly believed during the film days.

Thanks Akira. Well, I was able to get a sharp bird shot with my 300mm AIS on D800 at around 1/100s handheld but 300mm is a heavy beast plus that was a lucky shot. For most of my film photography period I only had 50mm and 28mm so I was very comfortable with 1/30 - 1/60 range. Later on, with D300 and then Nex-6 I can easily take sharp picture with 100mm at 1/60s but with D800 most of my pictures would be blurry. I can also go pretty slow on the speed with my Z5. I am glad everyone here has quite similar experience with D800. Having that said, I really like D800 so I will forgive it for this quirk.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The D800 was Nikon's first high-resolution camera and it suffers a bit from shutter-induced vibration. The D810 offers a limited-use EFCS (in M-UP mode only) which can reduce significantly the effects of shutter shake, and its shutter itself and the mirror chamber are also designed to minimize vibration. This is also exhibited in its quieter sound. The D850 by contrast is designed to be faster and its sound is worse. However, the D850 allows the EFCS to be used in Q / Qc modes in addition to M-UP and this means in practice one can benefit from the EFCS feature also in hand-held shooting, which I've found to be a big help. The mirrorless cameras also can and do take advantage of EFCS in regular shooting when in the appropriate mode. EFCS makes a surprisingly big difference in sharpness at normally problematic shutter speeds.

[ColinM]

.... I found myself in many occasions having my feet standing on two wobbling rocks in the middle of a stream fighting for balance.

Yes, i hear your pain Zang.
Like many, I often went for lowest ISO i thought Icould get away with (once I'd tried all the devices & techniques to make myself & the camera steady)

But I've so often come back with images that suffered because I couldn't use a high enough shutter speed. In these cases, the alternative of having slightly higher noise from a higher ISO would have been the least of my problems because often, the unsharp image just wasn't usable.