Is Pentax's high shutter speed real?

**NeatKnight** · 02-28-2012, 06:02 PM

It seems like 1/6000 second should have stopped this racecar.

Attached Images

Ole · 02-28-2012, 06:10 PM

It would appear from your shot that 1/6000 s isn't enough!

What you have to do is pan the camera, i.e. follow the car in the viewfinder and - still panning - press the sutter when the car is where you want it.

You may also want to prefocus manually on the spot where the car will be when you take the shot (i.e. forgo autofocus), in particular with that fence being in the way..

bdparker · 02-28-2012, 06:14 PM - **1 Like**

by the looks of the blur, you seem to be panning quicker than the car, because the blur is in the front (looks like the car is going backwards)
It's an art to pan at the same speed of the car and then capture it.

joe.penn · 02-28-2012, 06:40 PM

How did you get it too 1/6000th? What lens did you use? At 400ISO and under track lighting, I don't even see how a 1.4 wide open could have got you to 1/6000th under those conditions.

Also, at 1/6000th, you wouldn't even need to pan the camera to stop the movement of that car...

cmohr · 02-28-2012, 06:46 PM

Average speed of these guys is 200mph, thats 300feet per second, and at 1/6000th of a second, thats car has travelled a few inches. So it will blur wil still occur if you are not panning correctly. It takes practice, so don't be so hard on the camera.

Also, maybe try taking pics at more of an approaching angle, rather than as they are almost parallel to you and you'll find greater success.

Philoslothical · 02-28-2012, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by bdparker

by the looks of the blur, you seem to be panning quicker than the car, because the blur is in the front (looks like the car is going backwards)

That's how it looks to me, too.

I'd love to know what lens and aperture were used here that allowed for that shutter speed under the apparent lighting conditions in the shot. ISO seems strangely low for this.

Adam · 02-28-2012, 06:58 PM - **1 Like**

Might also be some SR blur if the SR system wasn't properly armed.

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:

**interested_observer** · 02-28-2012, 07:00 PM

If I remember my physics, 60 mph is 88 feet/second. NASCAR speeds are about 180 mph, or about 264 fps. Using a 1/6000 sec shutter speed, the car would have moved 0.044 feet (264/6000) or just a tad over a half an inch.(0.528 inch to be exact).

If the chain link fence was in perfect focus, then the car would be just slightly blurred due to motion. With both the chain link fence and the car both blurred, then your panning was not perfectly locked on the car. Panning just right is pretty difficult.

I guess given an estimated distance (from where you are sitting to the car) and the lens your using (focal length), we could determine the width of the frame (in feet), and then determine from that how many pixels a half an inch would be. I am guessing that it would be 100 pixels +/-, and 100 pixels or even 50 would still produce a reasonable amount of blur.

Panning is a very acquired art - hence I like to shoot very stationary objects - like landscapes.

joe.penn · 02-28-2012, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

Panning is a very acquired art - hence I like to shoot very stationary objects - like landscapes.

At 0.528 of an inch and at that distance, that is really not a pan'able shot, it would have been better to shoot the shot and sharpen in post. Now, the fence issue comes into play - the shot could have been panned with a shutter speed of around 1/1000th (or even slower) and the panning would have masked the fence (if shot between the fence posts/poles)...

rawr · 02-29-2012, 01:33 AM

Everything is blurry, even the static objects like the people and the fence.
How you were holding and moving the camera seems to be to blame.

vloris · 02-29-2012, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Might also be some SR blur if the SR system wasn't properly armed.

I think the Shake Reduction (SR) might not do you any good. That works well to reduce camera shake, but in this case it is your object that is moving. I'm not really sure how good it functions when panning, but it could be you will get better pictures with SR off here.

**TomB_tx** · 02-29-2012, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by vloris

I think the Shake Reduction (SR) might not do you any good. That works well to reduce camera shake, but in this case it is your object that is moving. I'm not really sure how good it functions when panning, but it could be you will get better pictures with SR off here.

Probably right - SR tries to compensate for hand motion, but panning is intentional hand motion, so it would try to counteract it. I'd turn SR off for such dynamic pictures.

kh1234567890 · 02-29-2012, 04:59 PM

The flash field in the EXIF is the clue - 'Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode'. So it wasn't really 1/6000 sec shutter speed

bdparker · 02-29-2012, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

The flash field in the EXIF is the clue - 'Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode'. So it wasn't really 1/6000 sec shutter speed

this mean that the flash wasn't used even when the camera recommends to use it due to low light. other wise the shutter speed in the exif would be 1/180.

Gimbal · 03-01-2012, 12:43 AM

Some kind of really high panning speed is the only reason I can come up with.

02-28-2012, 06:46 PM	#5
cmohr Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Brisbane. Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,824	Average speed of these guys is 200mph, thats 300feet per second, and at 1/6000th of a second, thats car has travelled a few inches. So it will blur wil still occur if you are not panning correctly. It takes practice, so don't be so hard on the camera. Also, maybe try taking pics at more of an approaching angle, rather than as they are almost parallel to you and you'll find greater success. Last edited by cmohr; 02-28-2012 at 07:08 PM. Reason: slight change in phrasing

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should PENTAX make a super-high-speed lens?	bwDraco	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	109	06-17-2011 07:12 PM
Pentax KX Shutter starting to stuck at slow shutter speed.	Spirit722	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	03-03-2011 09:49 PM
Example of AF, DR, high ISO and high shutter speed on K-5	benisona	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	11-30-2010 02:25 PM
K20D High Speed Shutter Flash Sync ??	WalterGA	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	11-04-2009 10:23 AM
"High speed" video of a K200 shutter in action	ve2vfd	General Talk	8	01-07-2009 05:11 AM

02-28-2012, 06:10 PM	#2
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,409	It would appear from your shot that 1/6000 s isn't enough! What you have to do is pan the camera, i.e. follow the car in the viewfinder and - still panning - press the sutter when the car is where you want it. You may also want to prefocus manually on the spot where the car will be when you take the shot (i.e. forgo autofocus), in particular with that fence being in the way..

02-28-2012, 06:14 PM - 1 Like	#3
bdparker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 307	by the looks of the blur, you seem to be panning quicker than the car, because the blur is in the front (looks like the car is going backwards) It's an art to pan at the same speed of the car and then capture it.

02-28-2012, 06:40 PM	#4
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	How did you get it too 1/6000th? What lens did you use? At 400ISO and under track lighting, I don't even see how a 1.4 wide open could have got you to 1/6000th under those conditions. Also, at 1/6000th, you wouldn't even need to pan the camera to stop the movement of that car...

02-28-2012, 06:52 PM	#6
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	Originally posted by bdparker by the looks of the blur, you seem to be panning quicker than the car, because the blur is in the front (looks like the car is going backwards) That's how it looks to me, too. I'd love to know what lens and aperture were used here that allowed for that shutter speed under the apparent lighting conditions in the shot. ISO seems strangely low for this.

02-28-2012, 06:58 PM - 1 Like	#7
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Might also be some SR blur if the SR system wasn't properly armed. 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:

02-28-2012, 07:00 PM	#8
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	If I remember my physics, 60 mph is 88 feet/second. NASCAR speeds are about 180 mph, or about 264 fps. Using a 1/6000 sec shutter speed, the car would have moved 0.044 feet (264/6000) or just a tad over a half an inch.(0.528 inch to be exact). If the chain link fence was in perfect focus, then the car would be just slightly blurred due to motion. With both the chain link fence and the car both blurred, then your panning was not perfectly locked on the car. Panning just right is pretty difficult. I guess given an estimated distance (from where you are sitting to the car) and the lens your using (focal length), we could determine the width of the frame (in feet), and then determine from that how many pixels a half an inch would be. I am guessing that it would be 100 pixels +/-, and 100 pixels or even 50 would still produce a reasonable amount of blur. Panning is a very acquired art - hence I like to shoot very stationary objects - like landscapes.

02-28-2012, 07:09 PM	#9
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by interested_observer Panning is a very acquired art - hence I like to shoot very stationary objects - like landscapes. At 0.528 of an inch and at that distance, that is really not a pan'able shot, it would have been better to shoot the shot and sharpen in post. Now, the fence issue comes into play - the shot could have been panned with a shutter speed of around 1/1000th (or even slower) and the panning would have masked the fence (if shot between the fence posts/poles)...

02-29-2012, 01:33 AM	#10
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Everything is blurry, even the static objects like the people and the fence. How you were holding and moving the camera seems to be to blame.

02-29-2012, 01:53 PM	#11
vloris New Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 18	Originally posted by Adam Might also be some SR blur if the SR system wasn't properly armed. I think the Shake Reduction (SR) might not do you any good. That works well to reduce camera shake, but in this case it is your object that is moving. I'm not really sure how good it functions when panning, but it could be you will get better pictures with SR off here.

02-29-2012, 02:56 PM	#12
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	Originally posted by vloris I think the Shake Reduction (SR) might not do you any good. That works well to reduce camera shake, but in this case it is your object that is moving. I'm not really sure how good it functions when panning, but it could be you will get better pictures with SR off here. Probably right - SR tries to compensate for hand motion, but panning is intentional hand motion, so it would try to counteract it. I'd turn SR off for such dynamic pictures.

02-29-2012, 04:59 PM	#13
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	The flash field in the EXIF is the clue - 'Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode'. So it wasn't really 1/6000 sec shutter speed

02-29-2012, 05:24 PM	#14
bdparker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 307	Originally posted by kh1234567890 The flash field in the EXIF is the clue - 'Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode'. So it wasn't really 1/6000 sec shutter speed this mean that the flash wasn't used even when the camera recommends to use it due to low light. other wise the shutter speed in the exif would be 1/180.

03-01-2012, 12:43 AM	#15
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Some kind of really high panning speed is the only reason I can come up with.