Some M4/3 cameras (like the GH4) and lenses are not that much smaller than cropped sensor DSLRs and since I haven’t shot very much with M4/3 gear my comments in this section are based on my experience shooting with the Nikon 1 system.
When facing low light situations a photographer’s ability to shoot at slow shutter speeds while using a smaller and lighter camera system can be a distinct advantage and can allow the photographer to shoot at lower ISO’s. This is especially true when photographing static subjects. In order to demonstrate this functionality I did a number of hand-held test images while sitting at my desk. I kept my elbows tucked into my chest and took three images each at various shutter speeds. What you’ll see in the following portion of the article is the best image I captured from each set of three test images.
As you look at these images it is important to remember the rule of reciprocity in photography. While fairly technical in nature the basic thing to remember is to maintain an appropriate minimum shutter speed based on the focal length of the lens with which you are shooting. If you’re using a 400 mm lens the minimum shutter speed is 1/400th. A 200 mm lens would require a minimum of 1/200th and so on. This does NOT include the effects of vibration reduction or image stabilization that may be in your lens or camera body.
When you read that the VR on a particular lens provides a 3-stop advantage it simply means that the lens can be shot hand-held at a shutter speed equivalent to 3 stops of light slower. For example a 400 mm lens would have a minimum recommended shutter speed of 1/400th. If it has VR that provides a 3-stop advantage that lens should be able to be shot hand-held at 1/50th of a second (1/400 / 2 = 1/200 /2 = 1/100 / 2 = 1/50).
Some folks recommend that you apply the crop factor to your lens to determine the minimum shutter speed at which you should shoot when using lenses designed for smaller sensor cameras. I do not agree with this advice at all and will try to demonstrate this with the test images.
Let’s start with some images taken with a Nikon 1 32 mm f/1.2 lens which does not have VR. All images were taken at ISO-200 in aperture priority. Here is the first image taken at f/1.2 1/80…as would be expected it is decently sharp.
Now let’s look at the next one taken at f/1.8 1/40…still pretty sharp.
Now f/2 1/30…still holding (all three test images at this speed were identical).
Here’s f/2.8 at 1/15…we’re still hanging in there (2 of 3 at this speed were identical, 1 a bit soft).
Now f/4 at 1/8…at this point I’m starting to lose it.
Pushing it further at f/5.6 at 1/4 second…the best of three attempts and not very good.
And, finally the best of three attempts at f/8 at 1/2 second…pretty bad.
The important point in all of this is the fact that smaller sensor cameras and their system lenses are much easier to shoot hand-held at slower shutter speeds when compared to full frame gear. Obviously you have to adjust your hand-holding technique quite a bit, especially your finger movement on the shutter.
The Nikon 1 32 mm f/1.2 has an equivalent field-of-view of 86 mm when compared to full frame. I can tell you from personal experience there is absolutely no way that I could have hand-held my Nikkor 85 mm f/1.8 when mounted on my D800 and got anything sharp at 1/30th of a second…and not even remotely close to sharp at 1/15th of a second.
Regardless of what else you may read… a 32 mm lens is always a 32 mm lens in my opinion. I do not believe that you need to apply any kind of crop factor to it to estimate the minimum shutter speed at which you should be able to shoot with it hand held. That’s why I was able to get 3 out of 3 usable images at 1/30 of a second and 2 out of 3 usable images at 1/15 even though the lens does not have VR.
No doubt some folks will disagree with my view on this point. I just base it on what I routinely experience first hand day in and day out when shooting with Nikon 1 cameras. It has been this way since the first day I started shooting with them. Perhaps this is one of those situations where there is a disconnect between photography theory and the real world.
Now let’s look at a few test shots using some Nikon 1 zoom lenses. Again, all images were shot at ISO-200. The first image was taken with a Nikon 1 30-110 f/3.8-5.6 VR lens. This has an equivalent field-of-view of 297 mm when compared to a full frame camera. But remember… it is still only a 110 mm lens and shoots like one in terms of minimum hand-holding shutter speed. This first image was taken at f/5.6, 1/4 second with the lens fully extended to 110 mm.
Hmmm… that looks like about a 4-stop advantage for the VR on that lens. Let’s look at another shot with the same lens fully extended, this time shot at f/8 at 1/2 second…
Let’s think about this for a moment… the 30-110 mm provides an equivalent field-of-view of about 300 mm. If I was shooting with a 300 mm full frame lens with VR that had a 4-stop advantage on a full frame body I’d be able to shoot at about 1/20th of a second best case. Going from 1/20th down to 1/4 of a second is about a 2-stop advantage for the 30-110 mm CX lens. Depending on the situation that could make the difference in shooting at ISO-400 rather than at ISO-1600 with full frame gear.
Thoughtful and concise presentation. I appreciate and agree with the content. I have recently started shooting sports, the majority indoors, in low-light. If you want/need a reality check of the limits of your gear, I highly recommend an indoor venue with low-light and fast action. Admittedly using older DSLR’s (Canon) 40D and 5D is lacking due to 3200 ISO limitation. They are simply not up to the task, even with f/1.8 lenses. Outdoors, the 40D still does a great job. Indoors, I have started using a Sony a6000 with a 50/1.8 O.S.S. lens with very good results. Was looking at a deal for a 7D (6400 ISO), but now thinking a better choice may be to wait for the a6100 due out early in 2016.
So why am I unable to part with the Canons? As you say, they are big and more impressive when you show up to a job. Other than that, cannot see much of a future for the DSLR. Great images can be had from both. Just one opinion.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for sharing your experiences – it is always great to hear from a reader! Fast action sports in low light is where full frame DSLRs can really show their stuff.
Tom
I find myself hurrying through the technical talk so that I can get to the next image and just stare …. I so love how you are able to achieve such beautiful results. You have buckets of talent! I shoot with my trusty D700 🙂 and it most always makes me appear more talented and knowledgeable than I really am ;). Another fine article Thomas!
I am humbled by your most generous comment Linda – thank you so much!
Tom
Morning Thomas (at least here)…
I am pleased you’re still writing regularly. I subscribed to your RSS feed when you reduced your activity on the other site. I’m glad that I did. I also read with interest your opinions about the CX system and deeply enjoy your wildlife work. I generally learn a thing or three when reading your essays.
I think your comment about the difference between DX and FX formats is right on the mark! I am currently carrying a Fuji X-T1 (and support infrastructure) and think that my load is not much different than if I was carrying my D800 and a similar complement of lenses. In the hand, the Fuji is significantly smaller *only* when using one or the small primes. If i have one of the bigger/faster/zoomier lenses attached, then the weight/size difference is not that great. It’s certainly not great enough to make any claim about how much smaller the mirrorless system is.
Another point is that I’m also a bit of an experimenter. I love trying vintage glass on my cameras to see what kind of images result. My current notion (I’m a bit of an obsessive-compulsive engineer) is that I’d prefer to see results of old 35mm lenses on full-frame (although I shoot DX with them as well). I’m curious about how the designers worked out their optical systems on their target format.
I used a Sony NEX-5N for much of that work, which is now sold. I’m tempted to pick up a used A7 to continue my experimentation and found an older Lumix G3 to use as a platform for C-mount glass.
It had not occurred to me to look at the Nikon 1 series as a potential base for my experiments. I’m going to have to think on this for a bit.
I had a number of experiments and reviews posted on my weblog. But, alas, a good chunk of that work was lost when my hosting service was sold and much data were lost in the transition. That’s my fault for not keeping a local backup.
Thanks for your wonderful insight, sir!
Hello David and thank you very much for your positive comment – always appreciated! What a shame that much of your work was lost from your weblog! It certainly sounds like you have a great passion for your work and experiments.
Tom
Dear Thomas
A very educational post, and love your pictures especially of the hummingbirds (just awesome).
I am a Omd EM1 user patiently waiting for the 300mm f4 pro to come.
I love birding and that’s what i use my gear 70% of the time for. I am based in Malaysia where the jungles can be dense with really poor light.
I have been thinking of the Nikon v2 (i need evf) and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 with adapter for these conditions.
The reach here is not critical but the f2.8 makes a lot of sense.
Would appreciate your thoughts on this combination.
I’m glad you enjoyed the article Rahu – thanks for the positive comment!
Using a Nikon 1 V2 with the FT-1 adapter with a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 sounds like it would be a great combination for your application as it would give you an equivalent field-of-view of 189-540mm at f/2.8. The zoom would give you a good level of flexibility to frame your subjects and the VR would also help shooting that combination hand-held. You would need to keep in mind that when using an FX lens that you will be restricted to one focus point in the centre of the frame that cannot be moved. If you can get quite close to the subject birds using a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 also works well, although you would not have VR with that lens.
Depending on your budget and time frame you may want to wait for the V4 to come out. You’d have the additional advantages of a 20.8MP BSI sensor for better dynamic range and colour depth which may be very helpful in dark shooting conditions. Plus, you would be shooting with a camera without a low pass filter which would produce slightly sharper images. Going from 14MP with the V2 to 20.8MP with a future V4 would also give you a lot more cropping potential which would add that much more flexibility to the set-up.
Tom
A very informative and beautiful post. I’ve come to realize that the size/weight/ergonomic advantages of the smaller systems spell a long term shift to these newer technologies. One only has to look at the numbers of iFone and Android sales and see the pain some of the traditional camera companies are enduring in their balance sheets. I think Nikon made a good choice concentrating their low end efforts in the 1″ format. This size allows for a carry around device that M4/3 cannot provide.
The question is can the company survive long enough for the technology in 1″ sensor performance to get good enough to allow an overall end to end experience (snap through presentation) to approach their DSLR products. Right now it looks like the 1″ is up to about 2005-2008 levels of their dslr sensors. Then one looks at the competition from all the other larger companies like Panasonic and Sony and wonders!
With the new lens prices “out of sight” for the average consumer I feel that Nikon will only be able to ride the F=mount compatibility “horse” a short time, but this is only an opinion. What a tough market this newer technology has created for the traditional camera guys.
Hi Jay,
Thanks for adding some interesting perspectives to the discussion – much appreciated! Business strategy is always intriguing in terms of the decisions that a company makes to prepare itself for changes in technology, customer needs etc. In terms of the future of the Nikon 1 line there was an interesting quote from one of its senior executives, “I am not satisfied with the current situation for our Nikon 1 advanced cameras–interchangeable lens type. We are planning to reactivate the market and expand our share by launching new models.” I think this indicates that Nikon does see this camera format as an important part of their longer term strategy. When we consider demographics and the aging Baby Boomer population addressing this market with smaller, lighter cameras does make marketing sense.
As the camera market continues to shrink production volumes of specific bodies and lenses also reduce which drives manufacturing costs up as fixed overheads are spread over fewer units of production. Inevitable price increases result. No one really knows where the market will stabilize but smaller markets may have the effect of driving some of the smaller manufacturers, or those with a poor financial base out of the market.
I think the imaging characteristics are such that there will always be a professional and enthusiasts market that will want full frame cameras. I still believe that the part of the Nikon product line up that is at most longer term risk from a strategic standpoint is the DX line, even though it currently represents the lion’s share of Nikon’s interchangeable lens sales. This probably sounds bizarre but I don’t believe there is enough of a difference shooting between FX and DX formats and as the CX line continues to improve (and full frame bodies become more and more affordable) it will have the effect of offering buyers a very different experience than does the DX line. Anecdotally I have read many reader comments on other blogs that some FX owners have sold their DX gear and moved over to CX. So, while they have moved away from DX at least Nikon kept them from going to M4/3 competitors.
Nikon has remained profitable and their latest financial statement shows that the company had their best year in the last 5 in terms of operating income as a percentage of net sales from the camera business. I think this shows that they are doing the right things operationally to bring their costs and production in line with the market.
Tom
Hey Thomas,
Intriguing, yes a good word. I guess if I were still working the product directions job could be most exciting! I also expect provide ample short job “half-life” numbers.
As you know I am invested in the 1 series, DX, FX and 4/3 technologies as an advanced hobbist. Advanced. well maybe……
Portability is quite high on my list as is quality for my particular life style. That said I am surprised that the 1J1 with 10mm f/2.8 and the D610 with an AiS manual lens (28, 50 or 55mm micro) have evolved as my most used platforms. Just the difference in size between the 1J1 and 1V1 and the various 1 Series zooms compared to the 10mm prime make a huge difference to me. The surprising part for me is that I will pick up the D610 and AiS prime even with the big size difference rather than a m4/3 (which I own) or the 1J when I want a superior image. Dynamic range and color fidelity at higher iso numbers is the kicker for me. And the D610 with a prime fit into the same LowePro utility pouch as the IJ, 1V or M4/3.
You may be right about the DX line being more at risk than the FX or CX line, but who knows. I tend to think that Nikon may become the first “Japanese Lieca or Hasselblad” with one of the larger companies replacing Nikon and/or Canon as the premier Japanese camera brand.
Jay
Hi Jay,
Your post reminds me that each of us has a unique shooting style and the most important thing is to acquire and use the gear that is best suited for our individual needs. There is no right or wrong when it comes to that. You love using your full frame D610 with a prime lens. When I owned a D800 the last thing I would ever do is shoot stills with a prime lens. It’s been about 6 weeks since I sold off all of my full frame gear and I haven’t missed it for even one second. Just goes to show that we’re all different!
It certainly is an interesting time in the camera market that’s for sure! I guess much of the future will depend on how long some of the bigger, diversified competitors are willing to lose money from their camera operations, especially if the market continues to shrink.Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Tom