[Adam]

as I say - all of us - had their own expectations -

I would love to hear - what's your results - in the lowest shutter speed - higher Iso - and bigger focal length . ( possibly even at low apperture - to maximise your chances to get blur )

I got very very steady hands, I'm also a good gun shutter because of that. But in 70 mm end - and high Iso - I cannot go below 1/30 , and in Oly - I can get sharp image even with 1/6 sec.

My best with the K-3 II has been 1/3s at 31mm. Anywhere between 1/8s and 1/15s should easily be doable hand-held if you do your best to also keep the camera steady, but if you use long focal lengths a lot you should expect to use faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs.

The KP and K-1 now also have 5-axis systems, so maybe that would work better for you since you're used to the Olympus. But personally, I've seen Pentax SR as always being very effective, and never really felt like it was lacking even in the first generation over a decade ago.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[BigMackCam]

correct - I was shooting with 14Mpix size M*** .

Why I'm counting pixels .. Because I often shoot people, and sometimes I count on SR to get lower Iso...

I can easily go with 1/30 to shot the people, but I was wondering how low i really can go.

Firstly, 1/30s is too low in my experience when shooting people. Even when they're standing still or seated, there is simply too much possibility for very slight movement in the subject. You might get some sharp shots at 1/30s, but you'd be better off at 1/60s, and much better off at 1/100 - 1/125s. This has nothing to do with SR, but with the ability to freeze motion - a very different issue, as I'm sure you know.

It seems for me, the blur becomes visible at speed twices low then recomended speed without SR on.

to be said - that means for 70 mm end - 1/100 shuter speed - am I right here ? From film era - it was valid rule how long is your lens lengt - that' how your lowest shutter speed can be.
It's true .

so, Im closeto 2 stop down from that when I get acceptable result with SR turned on - with 1/30 - 70 mm

Using the rule 1 / (focal length x crop factor), on APS-C, hand-holding without SR you should be able to get sharp shots of static objects at 1 / (70 x 1.5) = 1/105s... so, yes, 1/100s should be fine. Of course, some people will need a faster shutter speed than this if they're not steady enough, while some will be able to go considerably slower if they are steady and have good technique in their hold of the camera and breathing.

Three stops of SR advantage should, in theory, allow you to shoot at 1/13s instead (the K-3 is good for 3.5 stops, the K-3II - allegedly - for 4.5 stops). But this assumes you're getting blur-free shots at 1/100s without SR, and is for absolutely static subjects. In reality, 1/13s is simply way too slow for capturing people.

[CarlJF]

Why I'm counting pixels .. Because I often shoot people, and sometimes I count on SR to get lower Iso...

I can easily go with 1/30 to shot the people, but I was wondering how low i really can go.

It seems for me, the blur becomes visible at speed twices low then recomended speed without SR on.

For portraits, SR or not, you should never get your SS below the 1/FL rule. In fact, FWIW, I usually go by the 2 x FL rule... At 1/30 with a 70mm lens, it's much too slow to get sharp portraits, because your subject are almost never perfectly still, unless shooting a statue. With my 70mm, for portrait I use TAv mode, 1/250 (although I could go to 1/100 with a still subject) and let the ISO float. If the ISO has to be pushed too high, it means it's time to get the flash...

[BigMackCam]

I have problems with swaying back and forth, side to side and "squeezing the trigger" is often jerky. Add the vibration of the mirror working and the bulk of my images would embarrass me should I show them to anybody! I am not likely to get any younger or healthier so I need to be a bit savvy and find things to steady myself with.

And you're by no means alone with this My biggest problem is back and forth swaying, closely followed by a tendency to slightly rotate the camera as I squeeze the shutter release. After years of shooting, it still hasn't become second-nature to me to avoid these, and I have to be conscious of my limitations. Like you, I steady or brace myself whenever possible, especially for macro and long focal length shots...

[normhead]

In one of my photography texts books there was an analysis of 11x14 photos taken with and without a tripod. There was noticeable blur from camera shake, right up to 1/1000 of a second. There simply was no safe on tripod setting where you could safely say you didn't need a tripod for the clearest possible picture. I would suggest pixel peeping gives you much more detail than an 11x14.

[BigMackCam]

In one of my photography texts books there was an analysis of 11x14 photos taken with and without a tripod. There was noticeable blur from camera shake, right up to 1/1000 of a second. There simply was no safe on tripod setting where you could safely say you didn't need a tripod for the clearest possible picture. I would suggest pixel peeping gives you much more detail than an 11x14.

Absolutely.

I'll add that I have a fair number of photos I consider to be keepers... good keepers... that don't stand careful scrutiny at 100% reproduction; but at decent viewing sizes, they're great. I can say the same thing where I've used lenses that are less than spectacular at the borders... the images aren't perfect viewed at 100% close-up, but in real-world viewing situations, they're just fine

[photoptimist]

In one of my photography texts books there was an analysis of 11x14 photos taken with and without a tripod. There was noticeable blur from camera shake, right up to 1/1000 of a second. There simply was no safe on tripod setting where you could safely say you didn't need a tripod for the clearest possible picture. I would suggest pixel peeping gives you much more detail than an 11x14.

Exactly!

The 1/f shutter speed rule of thumb is typically for a 8x10 print. But if you take a K-3 image and magnify to 100% for pixel peeping on most computer monitors, the result is equivalent to a 40x60 enlargement (assuming a 100 ppi pixel pitch on the monitor). A 70 mm lens with that much enlargement should be shot at 1/350. That the OP is getting stability at high enlargement with a 1/30 shutter speed implies he's getting about 3.5 stops stabilization. All things considered that's what you'd expect from the K-3.

Variants of the issue have been occurring with all high-resolution digital cameras in recent years in which people get a "better" camera and find it seems to have worse pixel-peeping sharpness because the newer camera can better resolve the blur that was always there from shaky hands, flimsy tripods, bad technique, soft lenses, poor focus, etc.

[Nicolas06]

For portraits, SR or not, you should never get your SS below the 1/FL rule. In fact, FWIW, I usually go by the 2 x FL rule... At 1/30 with a 70mm lens, it's much too slow to get sharp portraits, because your subject are almost never perfectly still, unless shooting a statue. With my 70mm, for portrait I use TAv mode, 1/250 (although I could go to 1/100 with a still subject) and let the ISO float. If the ISO has to be pushed too high, it means it's time to get the flash...

I would use the 1/(2x focal length) FF equivalent as a safe value when shooting without SR... With SR, the safe value is more 2/(focal length) at least, giving a comfortable 2 stops.

For sure I got shots at 1/15s with my FA77 with K3 and that look like 4 stops. But in reality the shoot was sharp, not pixel sharp and also I made an effort on my side to be stable. Even without SR, if you make an effort, you may very well manage 1/60 meaning that still really 2 stops you are really getting.

Still 2 practical stops is huge. I heard that the Fuji people using their 90mm f/2 need 1/250 or 1/320 to get sharp results. That is annoying in low light to not be able to use 1/80 - 1/125 at least.

[BigMackCam]

I would use the 1/(2x focal length) on FF as a safe value when shooting without SR... With SR, the safe value is more 2/(focal length) at least, giving a comfortable 2 stops.

Except that with motion freezing (as you know), the SR benefit doesn't apply, since it only accounts for camera movement... and, even with still portraiture (unless we're talking about a mannequin), there is the potential for subject movement...

[Nicolas06]

hmmmm.... I was practicing today again - and measued picture with my usual pixel peeping

I found heavy to get clear sharpness with NR on , if the shutter was below 1/30, when I'm on 70 mm length - and I tried that to point camera in some detailed printed box with small but good letters for that kind of tests.

It's good to know where exactly is the line of usable. Because NR is not perfection here, and 3 axis are kind of low... Bigger APS-C sensor sure have limitations.

I'm kind of OK with that. Just want to know where exactly is this thin line.

This work well and is a non issue. On the opposite, if you were to post process your raws with a good software like DxO prime, you'd get at least 2 stops more. This is more significant than 1/20s vs 1/30s that is about 0.5 stop, not a huge difference if you ask me.

Also, the bigger APS-C sensor "that have limitations" actually perform much better than the m4/3 ones, more actually than the pure physics would indicate. Except if you have an M1-II, you are already getting 1-1.5 stop more from the sensor than on m4/3. This isn't to be overlooked. Typically the pictures at base isos 200 on my father pana in JPEG look comparable to the iso 800 shots on the K3. And there no real iso 100 on these bodies.

For many shooting opportunities even with a tripod going to low isn't the best idea. So while SR is useful, a small difference in performance between bodies isn't that relevant. It isn't like anybody would get the 5 second shot on the pana.