Handheld Shutter Speeds

[dc2]

Originally Posted by JKSeidel

I can believe that. I noticed a huge difference in my ability to handhold when I went from my old 300D to my new 20D. The 20D is alot less tolerant. I can usually do 300mm shots down to about 1/60 and even an occasional 1/30, lower than that is pure luck for me with that length of lens. I'm quite happy doing even that, given the old rule-of-thumb of 1/(focal length) = minimum handheld speed. I use a technique I learned in a gun training course. B.A.S.S. - Breathe, Aim, Slack, Squeeze. Seems to work for photography as it does for using firearms.

I've talked to two locally based pros who swear by this: http://www.pixelagogo.com/gopod/. I just haven't seen enough reviews and commentary on it to make the plunge. None of the local photo supply shops carry them, so I've been unable to try one out.

I jumped from a 10d to a 1Ds2 and noticed the huge difference You do surprise me with the 300d to the 20d making such a big difference with this though .
I never seen that go pod device before .Have you tried it yourself to see if it helps you ?

[Narsuitus]

Originally Posted by JKSeidel

I use a technique I learned in a gun training course. B.A.S.S. - Breathe, Aim, Slack, Squeeze. Seems to work for photography as it does for using firearms.

JKSeidel,

Exactly what are you doing during the "Slack" portion of B.A.S.S.?

[scoundrel1728]

Anybody ever notice whether the mirror recoil on an SLR would make the camera harder to hold still?* I would expect it to.*

I have successfully handhold down to 1/15 second when shooting near the wide angle end with my Coolpix, and have even managed some shots as slow as 1/4 second when using burst mode.* I prefer to brace the camera on something when shooting that slow though, and have become adept at folding my camera or shimming it with my fingers to shoot with exposure times in the 1-8 second range under some conditions.* An articulated LCD is a real help when shooting like that.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by dc2

I jumped from a 10d to a 1Ds2 and noticed the huge difference You do surprise me with the 300d to the 20d making such a big difference with this though .

While probably not as big a difference as what you experienced, it was definitely noticable right away. My first few outings with the 20D were a bit frustrating until I figured out what was going on.

Originally Posted by dc2

I never seen that go pod device before .Have you tried it yourself to see if it helps you ?

I've only seen one being used by a local pro. He swore it was the best thing since the invention of the wheel. Another pro I talked to was very enthusiastic about the GoPod as well. I wish one of the local camera stores would stock a few, so I could test it out. It is an item I'd be very hesitant to just lay out the cash for without seeing if it meets my needs. The one time I got to see it in action, I was a bit dubious if it could save as many shots as anti-shake technology (whether body or lens based). It definitely made things look more stable than simple handholding alone.

[CyberPet]

Wait a second... it all depends on what lens you're holding too. If you have a wide angle you sure won't get much camera shake compared to a tele lens. So this is all relative unless we all shoot with the exact same lens!

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by Narsuitus

JKSeidel,

Exactly what are you doing during the "Slack" portion of B.A.S.S.?

Relaxing (to a degree). Avoid tensing up. That part isn't as vital with a camera as it is with a rifle. If you are anticipating the recoil from a .30-06 and tense up, you are going to definitely blow the shot. It still has a degree of merit though with photography. If you anticipate mirror slap or start thinking that this might be an impossible handheld shot, then it will most likely be a self-fulfilling failure. In other words, ease up and just shoot.

[dc2]

Originally Posted by CyberPet

Wait a second... it all depends on what lens you're holding too. If you have a wide angle you sure won't get much camera shake compared to a tele lens. So this is all relative unless we all shoot with the exact same lens!

Check the 2nd post on this thread

[CyberPet]

Well, then I can handhold everything from 1/4 to 1/250 seconds, depending on the lens.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

Anybody ever notice whether the mirror recoil on an SLR would make the camera harder to hold still? I would expect it to.

I have successfully handhold down to 1/15 second when shooting near the wide angle end with my Coolpix, and have even managed some shots as slow as 1/4 second when using burst mode. I prefer to brace the camera on something when shooting that slow though, and have become adept at folding my camera or shimming it with my fingers to shoot with exposure times in the 1-8 second range under some conditions. An articulated LCD is a real help when shooting like that.

I'm sure the differences in mirror slap are significant. My current camera, an Olympus E-1, has a very smooth and slick response, but one of my older cameras (another Olympus, but a film OM4ti) makes quite a shudder when slapping.

Without veering off topic too much - it will be quite a significant improvement when we get to have a high quality EVF (electionic viewfinder) in our DSLRs. No mirror slap, and other benefits such as realtime preview and reducing the distance between lens and sensor. In some ways the mechanical mirror seems a quite antiquated relic in digital photography.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

Without veering off topic too much - it will be quite a significant improvement when we get to have a high quality EVF (electionic viewfinder) in our DSLRs. No mirror slap, and other benefits such as realtime preview and reducing the distance between lens and sensor. In some ways the mechanical mirror seems a quite antiquated relic in digital photography.

The improvements to camera design made possible by digital photography sounds like a good topic for a new thread that I have just created.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Has anyone tried the contraptions that apply downward pressure on your camera and thusly allow you to handhold better shots? I have seen straps attached to like belt buckles and then the other end to the camera I think that are for this purpose......anyone else know what I am talking about?

While I personally haven't used such devices, I know of many discussions elsewhere about them. The results are about what you might expect, some claim they help almost as much as a monopod, others state that they are minimal in effect and are equivalent to voodoo. Many say you can achieve the same thing by shortening your neckstrap and pulling the camera out such that the strap goes very taut. As someone else stated in this thread, it's an effort to eliminate a degree of freedom that the camera can move. I'd imagine the amount of usefulness one can obtain from devices like you mention depends highly on each individuals cause of camera motion.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

All,

What is the slowest shutter speed that you can handhold and get acceptable results?* After posting the shutter speed that you can get down to - tell us about your techniques of how you steady your equipment to achieve these results.

Mine would probably be 1/30 (not always - but sometimes) and I simply hold the camera with both hands firmly, tuck my shoulders against my body and hold my breath a bit (literally - not figuratively) as I press the shutter.*
Jared

Is that so, Jared? Amazing!
And what happens when you separate your shoulders from your body?

RS

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Has anyone tried the contraptions that apply downward pressure on your camera and thusly allow you to handhold better shots? I have seen straps attached to like belt buckles and then the other end to the camera I think that are for this purpose......anyone else know what I am talking about?

There are degrees of keeping the camera steady. I would assume that they would help steady the camera beyond just straight handholding and would probably allow for performance better than the rule-of-thumb would indicate, at least for those users who have learned to use the devices effectively. In practice I don't see them used a lot, so I would infer that most photographers who try these devices don't find them effective enough to be worth the trouble of attaching them.

[dc2]

I posted that Jared, I read that.
It was a quote from canon in an E O S magazine
I really noticed the difference , as did JKSeidel above

[Rokcet Scientist]

I have never seen a handheld shot (i.o.w. without anti-shake; at standard 50mm) at 1/60th or lower that really was pinsharp at 20"x16"!

At smaller enlargements they may LOOK sharp. But they are NOT! That's just your eyes' limitation to see that size details clearly!

So, if pinsharp is really what I need, I shoot no lower than 1/60th WITH anti-shake on.

RS

[dc2]

I tend to agree with RS on that and its a reason I try to buy lenses with IS

[scoundrel1728]

As others have already touched on but not specifically said, the minimum shutter speed for handholding also depends on the necessary criterion for "sharp." The more severe the criterion, the less motion blur can be tolerated. Increasing the general resolution of the system will tend to make motion blur the limiting factor in getting a sharp picture. Increasing the size of the final image will also proportionately increase the size and visibility of the details (and blur) provided that the viewing distance remains the same.

[mikej]

Don't get wrapped up in the large print has to be even more in focus delima. The viewing distance of a large print should increase as it gets bigger. This will compensate for the lack of sharpness to some extent since it will be further from our eyes and we still won't be able to see the fine detail. I don't remember what the recommended viewing distances are for the different sizes, but an 8x10 is about arms length and a billboard is about half a block. If you were to stand in front of a billboard size print, you would see lots of defects, even though it looks in focus from your car down the street.

Also, you can not do a good job of determining sharpness for a large print while viewing it on your monitor. I don't know how many pictures I rejected when I started working with digital images because I thought they weren't good enough to print. Then I started sending them to the lab to print just so I could see how bad they were in print... and I found they looked pretty good, even at larger sizes.

Mike