Think Again: Stopping Camera Shake and the 1/(Effective Focal Length) Formula

[HDNitehawk]

Last night I read a research paper that did tests on camera shake. Toward the bottom of the paper under "Camera-Motion and Pixel Size Tradeoff" it stated "Therefore, sensors with smaller pixel size will need longer exposure duration and thus introduce higher amount of camera-shake."
scien.stanford.edu/jfsite/Papers/ImageCapture/ICIS06_CameraShake.pdf

To Joel's comment about setting up a test.

I have checked this in actual field use and I was aware of the theory when I bought the 5Ds R.
This is a ritual that I have done several times over the last few years. Sitting in the blind before day break I sit in the blind with my 500mm L and keep checking the light to see when it reaches an acceptable point. Shooting off my monopod and using IS I know from experience that with today's equipment I need 1/250 to get a marginal picture with little camera shake. At 1/500 I can get decent results. When I bought my new 500L II with its improved IS I gained a stop, the speed had been 1/500 and 1/1000. When I bought the 5Ds R the ritual is repeated in the morning and I shoot test shots to find the acceptable levels. With the 5Ds R I lost a stop with ISO, but the shutter speed remains the same.

I have been trying to figure a way to test the pixel theory. Maybe attach some kind of vibrator that has a very low frequency attached to the leg of a tripod? It really needs to be more of a shake.

As Neuro said earthquakes can have an effect. We have had a record number of earthquakes (2177 this year) in our state because of the oil industry. Maybe with a bit of timing I could use earthquakes for the testing.

But from what I am seeing (or should I say not seeing) I believe any effect pixel size will have on camera shake will require far less than 1 stop of light to overcome.