Handheld Shutter Speeds

[scoundrel1728]

Of course, I much prefer to get my image perfect the first time, but if you absolutely have to print an image that has a slight amount - say, a couple of pixels - of camera motion blur, I have found that Focus Magic works fairly well at sharpening the image.

[mikaelwardhana]

Is it true that with smaller size sensor say 1.6x,... the safe shutter speed should be increased by 1.6x as well?

1/(focallength x 1.6) ....? Is it true?

How do you explain this?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by mikaelwardhana

Is it true that with smaller size sensor say 1.6x,... the safe shutter speed should be increased by 1.6x as well?

1/(focallength x 1.6) ....? Is it true?

How do you explain this?

That's the first I ever heard about that. Seems an urban legend at best.
The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating: have you ever actually done that? If yes, did it markedly improve your pix? If not, do you ALWAYS get crappy pictures? No? I thought not! So that seems very much a BS story!
Just my 2 cents.

RS

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist

That's the first I ever heard about that. Seems an urban legend at best.
The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating: have you ever actually done that? If yes, did it markedly improve your pix? If not, do you ALWAYS get crappy pictures? No? I thought not! So that seems very much a BS story!
Just my 2 cents.

I have come across this in enough places that I think it may be true. It's related to the 1.6 crop enlarging the image and so enlarging any shake. I'm not an expert so don't quote me, but I think there is some truth in this.

[mikaelwardhana]

But there's no magnification added to the lens...it is just a crop...how can a crop affect the minimal shutter speed? that's where im lost...

I have tried a series of test to measure my own minimal shooting speed...and for me..generally I have made this conclusion.

I can handhold at 1 / (2/3 xfocallength)...

means on focal length 100mm i can shoot at 1/60 safely. At 300mm, I can shoot at 1/200 safely...
All my test was done using my 20D... so I think you have to be seriously wobbly if you think the old formula (1/focal length) is correct. let alone (1/ 1.6xfocal length) formula.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by mikaelwardhana

But there's no magnification added to the lens...it is just a crop...how can a crop affect the minimal shutter speed? that's where im lost...

The magnification happens at the other end, when the image is displayed or printed. For a given focal length and a given amount of camera movement (usually rotation) while the shutter is open, the image moves the same amount on the imager. However, the image on the smaller imager is magnified more to give the same-sized displayed or printed image, so the effective amount of camera movement on the final image will be increased by the crop factor. Thus, camera movement will have a greater effect on the smaller initial image and will require a correspondingly faster shutter speed to keep it under control. When the chalk dust settles from doing the math, it turns out that the blurring effect from camera movement is proportional to the 35 mm equivalent rather than the actual focal length of the lens.

[mikej]

Yes, it will be true, although how noticable it is is the question. If you look through a long lens... say a 400mm at an object in the distance... you will see that it takes more to hold the image still than a wide angle lens looking at the same object (although with a much wider area around the object. It's the same way in astrophotography... the stars move a lot faster with a long lens than they do with a short one. So you can shoot for a longer period of time without the stars showing movement with a short lens than you can with a long lens.

Now the difference between a 1.6 and a 1.3? Not a whole lot, although I'm sure there is an effect between the two. For sure a 1.6 and a full size sensor, but again it might not be that noticable under normal circumstances.

Mike

Mike

[CyberPet]

1.3 seconds (ok, not completely hand held, I did brace myself against a fence)

[mikej]

Petra, at that speed, just look at how fuzzy the spray from the falls is.




P.S. Not bad.

Mike

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

So if the camera being heavier is an aid to slower handheld shutter speeds - would adding the battery grip to my D60 allow me to maybe get acceptable results at slightly slower speeds.* I am assuming that this would add significant weight to the overall camera body.* (I'm just looking for an excuse to buy more stuff!)

Jared

Indeed, Jared.
Go, tell your wife you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE one!
Good luck...

...because a tripod or monopod is a tenth of the price of a D60 battery grip and will get you razorsharp pix at ANY shutterspeed!
(Beanbags are even FREE! D-I-Y!)

[Wilt]

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

Past tests many years ago have shown that SLRs are particulary affected by mirror slap down around 1/8 - 1/2, if I recall. Even if camera is on a tripod, the mirror could affect ultimate sharpness of the image, because the shutter was open long enough that the camera settling down after the movement would be recorded on the film. So mirror lockup function is very handy to use within the range of susecptible shutter speeds.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Now if Nikon would just put that feature on their cameras!

No joke! I would expect to shoot a lot at these speeds - too slow for Vibration Reduction or Image Stabilization to be effective - so mirror lockup would nearly be a must-have for me.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by bauerman

It's not working Rocket Scientist!!!* CRUD!* She would prefer the bean bag route!

Yeah. Well... women are from Venus, aren't they?
And "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet" (Mark Twain), so what did you expect?
Back to the drawing board, Jared, because you still MUST HAVE ONE, don't you?

[Gbee]

I can shoot to about a second with the right holding technique and the camera on burst with a wide angle lens.

The principle is similar to shooting a rifle for accuracy, exhale just before shooting and lean up against a wall, a doorway a pillar and squeeze the cradled camera to one’s face and fire.

Longer lenses present more of a challenge but here IS and VR means that a 300mm ƒ2.8 lens can be handled to about 1/30th sec with 1/15th possible when everything is just right.

[JDArt]

with IS, better.

[Sidebyte]

I recently resurrected my old Canon FT QL and several lenses. I shot a roll of Agfa 100 to test the different lenses and the flash to see if all was O.K. It's been at least ten years since I used any of the lot and I will tell you this......of course I'm ten years older and a little shaky I guess, but I will attest to the fact for me, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to handhold a 300 mm prime lens. My photo's with the long lens look like Don Knotts took them

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by Gbee

I can shoot to about a second with the right holding technique and the camera on burst with a wide angle lens.

The principle is similar to shooting a rifle for accuracy, exhale just before shooting and lean up against a wall, a doorway a pillar and squeeze the cradled camera to one’s face and fire.

Longer lenses present more of a challenge but here IS and VR means that a 300mm ƒ2.8 lens can be handled to about 1/30th sec with 1/15th possible when everything is just right.

Sure. And you're a.k.a. Bruce 'Die Hard' Willis.

[Mr. Pickles]

I think the key to what GBee said is the burst mode. One would think the first image is blurry, but the second or third has a better chance of being sharp. Hammering the shutter down on the first one will show, but there won't be that "shake" in the others. Might get vibration to you from the mirror opening/closing, but that should be it.