PDA

View Full Version : How Slow can you HandHold a Camera?


robski
18-02-08, 14:27
Some advice for hand held shutter speed

http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/handholding_shutter_speed.html

walwyn
18-02-08, 16:17
1/13 second with IS on the Panasonic:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/425798422_3e48ee3894_b.jpg

Not perfectly sharp but most movement is in the subjects, and I'd not have even attempted it with my old SLR and 210mm tamaron zoom.

Joe
18-02-08, 16:24
Great link Rob.

unfortunately, this bit could be a little misleading....
In fact for Canon APS-C sensors, 1.6x sharper. So instead of allowing the image to move by 16 microns, we can only allow it to move by 10 microns. Since we can only allow 10 microns of image movement, we now need to use a shutter speed of 1/160s rather than 1/100s. So smaller formats need faster shutter speeds if we want equally sharp prints of the same size.

This might leave people to beleive that a faster speed is needed for DX/ APS-C crop sensors verses FX/ Full frame (or 35mm) cameras. If the same lens is used this is true...which is what is said here. However,try a 30mm lens (or approx 30mm set on a zoom) on a DX /APS-C crop camera, and a 50mm on an FX /full frame (or 35mm film) camera to make more worthwhile 'real world' comparisons.

Many people will have experienced 35mm film SLR verses the C-APS sized DSLR. Others will have experienced larger formats than 35mm vs C-APS.
Even forgetting that larger than 35mm format cameras tend to be larger and heavier than most popular APS-C crop DSLRs, so promoting hand strain/shakes etc....with a given angle ie what you want to include in your shot , the reverse of the above is actually true.
To try and make this easier to understand, it's easier to think of the time verses physical distance the shutter blades have to move with any given camera format.
I've frequently had people say to me that they can handhold their APS-C 1.6x crop DSLR at anything approaching 1/8th second with a standard zoom lens, and still get sharp enough pictures.....OK, so try doing this with a 35mm SLR. You'll find the success rate to be much lower!
Alternatively, try handholding a 2x crop Olympus DSLR...wow!...you can get away with murder! LOL....some of the 'bridge' hybrid cameras have even smaller sensors, so even lower is possible

Those lucky enough to also own a 'full frame' FX crop DSLR can try the same against their 'C-APS' DX crop DSLR.


In an effort to explain further;
we have 3x cameras
1x 35mm or full frame camera with a 50mm lens
1x APS-C 1.6x crop camera with a 30mm lens
1x 2x crop camera with a 25mm lens
All three have approx' same angle of view (for arguments sake..ok, the ratio is different etc etc)
Set them all at the same low shutter speed
Normally on average the results from a full frame camera are going to show more blurr than the 1.6x crop. On average the 2x crop will have the best 'sharpness rate'.
That said, you can't go shooting at a couple of seconds with a minature camera....likewise a large format plate camera doesn't need a millionth of a second to get a blurr free image. Shutter speed x sharpness. There's probably a success rate curve there somewhere!...it's not going to be linear at the extremes.


DX/APS-C has a massive advantage getting sharp shots at slow speeds with a given image size/ angle required vs 35mm/full frame....another reason why I've been liking my digi Nikons verses my old film cameras so much :)

If you don't beleive me try it out ;)


Does this make sense, or is this totally confusing??:o

walwyn
19-02-08, 11:03
So at what speed can you hand hold with a 200-300mm zoom and still get a reasonable image?

yelvertoft
19-02-08, 11:36
So at what speed can you hand hold with a 200-300mm zoom and still get a reasonable image?

I'd say there's no hard and fast rule here, it all depends on the user and the equipment you're using. Debbi (Mrs Y) regularly gets acceptable results using here 50-200 lens on my old *istDS (APS-C sensor) at the long end of the range with shutter speeds down at 1/15th, an example is here:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=23142&what=allfields&name=Mrs%20Yelvertoft
It should be noted that this camera and lens has no AS/IS/VR etc. but it is an exceptionally small, light body and lens combination, and Debbi does seem to have a certain knack, there's no way I can get the same results without using AS but she just reels them off.

All I can suggest is you get the camera/lens combo you're interested in using and peel off numerous test shots, critically analyse the results and decide for yourself how slow you can go with an acceptable rate of keepers. There will be an element of luck involved, I have had good results at 1/2 second with a 55mm lens fitted and anti-shake switched on, but this was luck and not repeatable. Also, subject movement and deliberate techniques such as panning will have an effect.

kwanon
19-02-08, 11:39
I was always led to believe that the bigger and heavier the camera was, then a slower shutter speed was useable. This was due to inertia.

gordon g
19-02-08, 21:17
For a surprisingly long time with good technique! This shot was taken with 1DsII and sigma 28-70 f2.8, 1/4 sec exposure, f32 whilst perched on a boulder in mid-stream. I braced against my knees, shot on the exhale etc, but there was no other camera support.

Joe
20-02-08, 00:01
I was always led to believe that the bigger and heavier the camera was, then a slower shutter speed was useable. This was due to inertia.
That's another factor too...which is why I feel far more comfortable handholding my big heavy nikon D1series cameras at slow speeds than I do with Wife's Canon 300D...However, Jacky finds it extremely uncomfortable to hold my nikons up to her eye, let alone hold it still enough to get sharp shots at low speeds......due to hand/arm strain I mentioned in previous posts.
Also as previuosly posted, the effects of format size is a big factor which is often overlooked, which is the point I was trying to make.
I agree with Duncan, in that there really are no hard and fast rules re shutter speeds verse sharp shots. Depends on the result you're after but I've taken a few that I preferred with blur than without.
The features of IS/supersteady shot/VR are also sometimes misunderstood. More than once I've heard of customers bringing cameras back where Is technology has been used "but look at this print...the moving car is still blurred"...IS works to minimise the risk of blur occuring due to movement of photographer/ person holding the camera whilst shutter is open.
It would be so much easier if IS worked to slow the whole world down! we'd all be out taking pictures of the previuosly impossible, using really low ISO for quality and exposures of several seconds :) :)

PS, great shot Gordon!

yelvertoft
20-02-08, 09:52
shot on the exhale etc,

For information, Debbi recommends holding your breath at the moment of exposure.

gordon g
20-02-08, 12:17
For information, Debbi recommends holding your breath at the moment of exposure.

Yes, that's what I meant, but after breathing out. Holding an inhaled breath does keep your trunk stiffer, but breathing in also increases your pulse rate, and hence the slight shake in your hands that goes with it. There is also an increase in muscle tension, that can lead to tremor. Holding an exhaled breath, which I prefer, slows the pulse, reducing that shake, and also helps relax the muscles of your upper body, reducing any tension tremor.

Gidders
20-02-08, 13:24
Yes, that's what I meant, but after breathing out. Holding an inhaled breath does keep your trunk stiffer, but breathing in also increases your pulse rate, and hence the slight shake in your hands that goes with it. There is also an increase in muscle tension, that can lead to tremor. Holding an exhaled breath, which I prefer, slows the pulse, reducing that shake, and also helps relax the muscles of your upper body, reducing any tension tremor.

Exactly the technique I used to use target shooting to minimise the shake of the rifle

sassan
22-02-08, 17:39
Exactly the technique I used to use target shooting to minimise the shake of the rifle

That is the key thing.
If you target shoot, that is the same exact technique you want to use here too. Good that cameras don't give you a kick back...

Gordon where did you get that concept of increasing pulse rate with the inspiration? I thought at the end of inspiration due to higher venous return to heart by increase is size of right ventricle (Expanded chest), you get higher ventricular ejection fraction and volume (End diastolic volume), therefore the pulse rate actually comes down to keep cardiac out put the same... Muscle tension is a different story though.

gordon g
23-02-08, 00:15
That is the key thing.
If you target shoot, that is the same exact technique you want to use here too. Good that cameras don't give you a kick back...

Gordon where did you get that concept of increasing pulse rate with the inspiration? I thought at the end of inspiration due to higher venous return to heart by increase is size of right ventricle (Expanded chest), you get higher ventricular ejection fraction and volume (End diastolic volume), therefore the pulse rate actually comes down to keep cardiac out put the same... Muscle tension is a different story though.

It's a long while since I studied physiology, but I'll do my best! There is an increase in venous return to the right side of the heart from the peripheral circulation caused by the lowering of intrathoracic presure on inspiration. Pulmonary circulation is not affected as it is entirely intrathoracic. I dont think there is a significant increase in volume of the heart chambers in inspiration (I could be wrong here, from a distance of 20yrs, but if I remember, I'll check next week when I can get at the books at work) The pulse rate increases towards mid-inspiration as a result of increased return (and thus helps get more blood through the pulmonary circulation) and then falls back at peak inspiration. On expiration, intrathoracic pressure rises, reducing peripheral venous return, and heart rate falls. If an expired breath is held for a long time, pulse will accelerate again in response to hyopxia.
I may well have the mechanisms wrong, but I do remember the effect as I was the victim for the demonstration! Just checking empirically now, and it still happens! (Though again from memory, the effect is more pronounced in young and fit cardiovascular systems; maybe there's hope for me yet as 40 closes in!)