Whats your lowest handheld shutterspeed

Alex00 · 03-02-2010, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

Hi Alex,

I shoot mostly long tele, and I can pretty much rely on 2 stops slower than the 1/FL "rule". For 300mm, I can feel pretty confident at over 1/80, for 500mm -- 1/125 and I usually get a pretty fair share of acceptable shots. I always try to lean against something though. . . and this is with SR

My record, though was a 1 sec shot at 18mm -- standing, braced against a door jamb -- I don't even attempt this very often though. . .

Scott

Whatever works for you is fine. The average user with average shaky hands should use 1/2fc for optimal image quality specialty if the subject is moving and not steady. It may be your photographing a baby that constantly moves his head. Any sligh movement will cause blur if your shutter is not at least 1/2fc. You can always go slower if you have steady hands.

Just like anything else, practice helps make you a better photographer with more steady hands.

Alex00 · 03-02-2010, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

I have 5 photos posted in the "post your photos" under the title "Pub Night" which are all at 1/3 and 1/5 seconds....a little soft, but hey, its was very low light and you can only get so much when its that slow. I think they turned out nicely though.

Jason

Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose.

Jasvox · 03-02-2010, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Alex00

Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose.

You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room.

Jason

Alex00 · 03-02-2010, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room.

Jason

I would raise my iso to 3200 and do post processing to remove the noise. The other option would be to use a flash and not risk getting unusable soft or blurry image using a 1/5 specially if you have 1 chance shot.

Jasvox · 03-02-2010, 12:55 AM

Unfortunately, 3200 begins to look like crap and even with noise reduction software, it can tend to look a little painted. Using a flash in the room I was in was not an option. You have to make the most of the situation you are in as well. I think the shots I took and posted came out pretty nice and captured a good feeling of the room. Did you check them out?

The original point of this thread is about results related to low shutter speed, not noise levels.

Jason

Alex00 · 03-02-2010, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Unfortunately, 3200 begins to look like crap and even with noise reduction software, it can tend to look a little painted. I think the shots I took and posted came out pretty nice and captured a good feeling of the room. Did you check them out?

The original point of this thread is about results related to low shutter speed, not noise levels.

Jason

No one is taking about noise levels. 3200 will not create too much noise which can easily be corrected with post processing. Noisy photo is better then blurry photo. Noisy photo can be corrected, blurry photo can't.

joakimfors · 03-02-2010, 03:00 AM

K-7 and DA 35 at 1/3 s, minimal level adjustment.

Shooting at 1/5-1/10s is usually not a problem with the DA 35 and SR on… unless the subject is moving. Shooting at low shutter speeds with the DA 70 is a bit more difficult, but 1/10 s is manageable.

DA 70 at 1/10 s, no PP.

distudio · 03-02-2010, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by rustynail925

Whats your lowest handheld shutterspeed w/ blur free shots?
whats the percentage accuracy?
@ what focal length, and lens?

Interesting question, it really depends on a lot, who's bouncing around next to you, how much coffee you've had etc. One of my most widely published shots was made using the *ist D + V125/2.5 @ 1/30th hand held in a concert.

wildman · 03-02-2010, 03:37 AM

"Whats your lowest [practical] hand held shutter-speed"

"practical"= 50mm or less lens, reasonable quality, standing on own two feet without support, consistent results etc.

1/125 sec. The same as it's been for me for the last fifty years.

On the other hand when using my long glass (500mm or more and tripod mounted) 1/500 sec more or less.

Sure I've had exceptions but it's a case of the exception proves the rule.

Jasvox · 03-02-2010, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Alex00

No one is taking about noise levels. 3200 will not create too much noise which can easily be corrected with post processing. Noisy photo is better then blurry photo. Noisy photo can be corrected, blurry photo can't.

Soft doesn't mean blurry. I'll take a nice soft, film-like tone over noisy any day. When I shoot landscapes and still life, I will use a tripod and shoot at low iso. When in a dark setting and intimate space, I will work with what I have to produce the best results. In the case of the examples I stated, they turned out fine at iso 1600 and 1/3 t 1/5 sec shutter times, which was the point of my post to begin with.

Jason

**Rondec** · 03-02-2010, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Alex00

Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose.

I don't know of a point and shoot that can even do iso 800 and look decent. That means that with the point and shoot without flash in that situation, you would be shooting at 1/2 to 1 second exposures. Now that would look lousy!

Sure, shooting at iso 3200 would give you a little faster shutter speed, but it still would be on the slow side (read going from 1/4th second to 1/8th second) and you would still have motion blur from the people involved. Some photogs dislike flash a lot because of distraction, etc Jasvox made decisions about how he wanted his photos to look and is satisfied.

egordon99 · 03-02-2010, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room.

Jason

Not to mention if you were using f/1.4 to actually achieve 1/5s....Find me a P&S that has an f/1.4 lens

However, The Canon S90 is f/2 @ 6mm which makes it a GREAT "Pub" camera

egordon99 · 03-02-2010, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Alex00

I would raise my iso to 3200 and do post processing to remove the noise. The other option would be to use a flash and not risk getting unusable soft or blurry image using a 1/5 specially if you have 1 chance shot.

What if he already was at ISO3200 (and f/1.4) ? Have you done much low light shooting? Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.....

egordon99 · 03-02-2010, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I don't know of a point and shoot that can even do iso 800 and look decent. That means that with the point and shoot without flash in that situation, you would be shooting at 1/2 to 1 second exposures. Now that would look lousy!

Sure, shooting at iso 3200 would give you a little faster shutter speed, but it still would be on the slow side (read going from 1/4th second to 1/8th second) and you would still have motion blur from the people involved. Some photogs dislike flash a lot because of distraction, etc Jasvox made decisions about how he wanted his photos to look and is satisfied.

The Canon S90 actually looks pretty good at ISO800. Beyond that, things start to get ugly but for a compact camera, I'm pretty happy with it! Plus it's f/2 @ 6mm. Indoors I pretty much stick to the wide end. Plus it's MUCH more pocketable than any of my DSLRs.

egordon99 · 03-02-2010, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Alex00

1/FC is not enough for most users and will still result in slight blur if you Pixel peep.
1/2xFC is the way to go for the average user and will keep you on the safe side. You can always go slower and change the numbers if you feel your hands are stable enough. Using a 50mm focal, 1/50 is still not fast enough for allot of users specially if the object is moving.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "FC" ....Did you mean FL (Focal Length) ?

03-02-2010, 03:37 AM	#39
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	"Whats your lowest [practical] hand held shutter-speed" "practical"= 50mm or less lens, reasonable quality, standing on own two feet without support, consistent results etc. 1/125 sec. The same as it's been for me for the last fifty years. On the other hand when using my long glass (500mm or more and tripod mounted) 1/500 sec more or less. Sure I've had exceptions but it's a case of the exception proves the rule. Last edited by wildman; 03-02-2010 at 03:51 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Webcams: sometimes the lowest quality cameras can take the best pictures	Cannikin	Photographic Technique	2	10-27-2010 05:00 AM
K-7 Lowest price I have seen.	Uncle_dad	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	05-07-2010 06:59 AM
Shooting at Lowest Contrast?	PNTXFTW12	Video Recording and Processing	2	02-21-2010 06:41 PM
Help plz. widest pentax lens with lowest distortion?	kiamon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	06-02-2008 05:41 PM
Pentax K20D Lowest Price	maxamillion	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	03-05-2008 01:26 AM

03-02-2010, 12:35 AM	#31
Alex00 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 294	Originally posted by snostorm Hi Alex, I shoot mostly long tele, and I can pretty much rely on 2 stops slower than the 1/FL "rule". For 300mm, I can feel pretty confident at over 1/80, for 500mm -- 1/125 and I usually get a pretty fair share of acceptable shots. I always try to lean against something though. . . and this is with SR My record, though was a 1 sec shot at 18mm -- standing, braced against a door jamb -- I don't even attempt this very often though. . . Scott Whatever works for you is fine. The average user with average shaky hands should use 1/2fc for optimal image quality specialty if the subject is moving and not steady. It may be your photographing a baby that constantly moves his head. Any sligh movement will cause blur if your shutter is not at least 1/2fc. You can always go slower if you have steady hands. Just like anything else, practice helps make you a better photographer with more steady hands.

03-02-2010, 12:38 AM	#32
Alex00 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 294	Originally posted by Jasvox I have 5 photos posted in the "post your photos" under the title "Pub Night" which are all at 1/3 and 1/5 seconds....a little soft, but hey, its was very low light and you can only get so much when its that slow. I think they turned out nicely though. Jason Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose.

03-02-2010, 12:46 AM	#33
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by Alex00 Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose. You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room. Jason

03-02-2010, 12:51 AM	#34
Alex00 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 294	Originally posted by Jasvox You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room. Jason I would raise my iso to 3200 and do post processing to remove the noise. The other option would be to use a flash and not risk getting unusable soft or blurry image using a 1/5 specially if you have 1 chance shot.

03-02-2010, 12:55 AM	#35
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Unfortunately, 3200 begins to look like crap and even with noise reduction software, it can tend to look a little painted. Using a flash in the room I was in was not an option. You have to make the most of the situation you are in as well. I think the shots I took and posted came out pretty nice and captured a good feeling of the room. Did you check them out? The original point of this thread is about results related to low shutter speed, not noise levels. Jason

03-02-2010, 01:01 AM	#36
Alex00 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 294	Originally posted by Jasvox Unfortunately, 3200 begins to look like crap and even with noise reduction software, it can tend to look a little painted. I think the shots I took and posted came out pretty nice and captured a good feeling of the room. Did you check them out? The original point of this thread is about results related to low shutter speed, not noise levels. Jason No one is taking about noise levels. 3200 will not create too much noise which can easily be corrected with post processing. Noisy photo is better then blurry photo. Noisy photo can be corrected, blurry photo can't.

03-02-2010, 03:00 AM	#37
joakimfors Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 237	K-7 and DA 35 at 1/3 s, minimal level adjustment. Shooting at 1/5-1/10s is usually not a problem with the DA 35 and SR on… unless the subject is moving. Shooting at low shutter speeds with the DA 70 is a bit more difficult, but 1/10 s is manageable. DA 70 at 1/10 s, no PP.

03-02-2010, 03:20 AM	#38
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by rustynail925 Whats your lowest handheld shutterspeed w/ blur free shots? whats the percentage accuracy? @ what focal length, and lens? Interesting question, it really depends on a lot, who's bouncing around next to you, how much coffee you've had etc. One of my most widely published shots was made using the *ist D + V125/2.5 @ 1/30th hand held in a concert.

03-02-2010, 04:36 AM	#40
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by Alex00 No one is taking about noise levels. 3200 will not create too much noise which can easily be corrected with post processing. Noisy photo is better then blurry photo. Noisy photo can be corrected, blurry photo can't. Soft doesn't mean blurry. I'll take a nice soft, film-like tone over noisy any day. When I shoot landscapes and still life, I will use a tripod and shoot at low iso. When in a dark setting and intimate space, I will work with what I have to produce the best results. In the case of the examples I stated, they turned out fine at iso 1600 and 1/3 t 1/5 sec shutter times, which was the point of my post to begin with. Jason

03-02-2010, 05:40 AM	#41
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Alex00 Why not just use a cheap point and shoot camera to take your soft pic. I'm mean What's the points of having a high quality camera and lens if you want to use 1/4 handheld to make your shots. this doesn't make any sense to me and it's nothing to be proud off. Look at me I'm shooting at 1/4 by my photos are a little soft............ Beats the purpose. I don't know of a point and shoot that can even do iso 800 and look decent. That means that with the point and shoot without flash in that situation, you would be shooting at 1/2 to 1 second exposures. Now that would look lousy! Sure, shooting at iso 3200 would give you a little faster shutter speed, but it still would be on the slow side (read going from 1/4th second to 1/8th second) and you would still have motion blur from the people involved. Some photogs dislike flash a lot because of distraction, etc Jasvox made decisions about how he wanted his photos to look and is satisfied.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2010, 07:25 AM	#42
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by Jasvox You missed the point. I was in a low light room, fairly dark actually, and the only way to get anything fairly sharp and blur free was to shoot at iso 1600, which then shooting in Av caused my camera to choose a shutter speed of 1/3 to 1/5. Do you have any idea of how the camera works? This same room with a "cheap point and shoot" would have been so noisy, it would have looked like it was snowing in the room. Jason Not to mention if you were using f/1.4 to actually achieve 1/5s....Find me a P&S that has an f/1.4 lens However, The Canon S90 is f/2 @ 6mm which makes it a GREAT "Pub" camera

03-02-2010, 07:26 AM	#43
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by Alex00 I would raise my iso to 3200 and do post processing to remove the noise. The other option would be to use a flash and not risk getting unusable soft or blurry image using a 1/5 specially if you have 1 chance shot. What if he already was at ISO3200 (and f/1.4) ? Have you done much low light shooting? Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.....

03-02-2010, 07:28 AM	#44
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by Rondec I don't know of a point and shoot that can even do iso 800 and look decent. That means that with the point and shoot without flash in that situation, you would be shooting at 1/2 to 1 second exposures. Now that would look lousy! Sure, shooting at iso 3200 would give you a little faster shutter speed, but it still would be on the slow side (read going from 1/4th second to 1/8th second) and you would still have motion blur from the people involved. Some photogs dislike flash a lot because of distraction, etc Jasvox made decisions about how he wanted his photos to look and is satisfied. The Canon S90 actually looks pretty good at ISO800. Beyond that, things start to get ugly but for a compact camera, I'm pretty happy with it! Plus it's f/2 @ 6mm. Indoors I pretty much stick to the wide end. Plus it's MUCH more pocketable than any of my DSLRs.

03-02-2010, 07:29 AM	#45
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by Alex00 1/FC is not enough for most users and will still result in slight blur if you Pixel peep. 1/2xFC is the way to go for the average user and will keep you on the safe side. You can always go slower and change the numbers if you feel your hands are stable enough. Using a 50mm focal, 1/50 is still not fast enough for allot of users specially if the object is moving. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "FC" ....Did you mean FL (Focal Length) ?