How slow can you hand-hold?

Continuation from the 'major differences among A-series' thread,

because we were gettin' way off topic . . .

 

<p>

 

How slow do you believe you can hand-hold before you get an image you

consider unsharp? I consider myself steady, and I normally go two

stops faster than the reciprocal of the focal length. In other words,

for a 50mm lens, I'll hand-hold at 1/250 or faster. For distant

subjects at 1/250, I don't see any difference from a tripod-mounted

exposure on an 8 x 10 print. For serious macro, I shoot with tripod

or flash. Period.

 

<p>

 

Now this won't make me popular, but I think the "one over focal

length" rule is a load of crap. It's fine for snapshots, but I don't

see the point of using high-performance optics if you're willing to

give up all that sweet Canon FD image definition. If you're shooting

much slower than 1/<i>f</i>, you may as well use a point-and-shoot

with a plastic lens.

 

<p>

 

Yeah, I know, somebody's gonna say Frank or Eisenstaedt or somebody

shot at 1/30 or 1/15 hand-held, and I'll say: sure, anyone has the

right to shoot an unsharp picture. There's a semi-famous photo of

Steiglitz, taken by Adams, that he shot with a Leica hand-held at

1/15 if I remember right. It's a nice picture, and it looks like

Steiglitz all right, but it's noticeably unsharp, even on the printed

page.

 

<p>

 

EOS IS is a different matter. In the FD era, IS-type gyroscopic

stabilization was to my knowledge only available on specialized

aerial cameras. I think Linhof made one, for example.

<em>Now this won't make me popular, but I think the "one over focal length" rule is a load of crap. </em>

<p>

And if the image is sharp at 1/f? What then? Maybe you just drink too much coffee? :)

<p>

I have crap for lenses for my AE-1. Two ebay purchases (50mm and 24mm) that perform well but certainly are not optically perfect, so I have no clue. But if someone can hand-hold at 1/f or even slower, with bracing, specialized breathing, or whatever magic they use, so what? Why do you care? Your post indicates you've got an axe to grind, so please, relieve me of an arm or two with the blade if you must.

Only on rare occasions (a couple shots of tequila) will I allow myself to shoot handheld at 1/30th. I did actually manage to get an image at 1/30th that was still very sharp.

You are right, the one over focal length rule is just a guide line. "Every man has to know his limitations"...Eastwood. Get this, I shoot a lot of unfinished interiors for customers with a 17 f/4 shot at 1/4 or 1/8 sec. They are very satisfied and that's all that matters. You said it in your post, not all great pictures are sharp. Panning and blur come to mind. 24mm can be hand held close to 1/8 too if you relax and lower your heart rate. New Olympic sport....biathlon with cameras instead of rifles! who wants to judge the negs? anyone?

My ability to handhold a camera without shake changes very much (porbably depending on my psychological situation).<br>

I have taken a fairly sharp photo at 180mm focal length at 1/6s shutter speed!!! probably there was no blood moving in my veins when I clicked the button ;) I have the original file out of camera with exif info, I can prove it in court ;).<br>

but more often I can't prevent shake even at 2*focal length!

well, much better with a rangefinder or TLR than with an SLR, that's for sure. I'd say I can reliably hand hold a 35mm Rangefinder at 1/15th, a 6x6 TLR at 1/8th - 1/15th, and no better than 1/60th using a 35mm SLR.

Can anyone remember when they first read about Canon's IS system?<p>I think my first time was the mid 80's in Modern Photography. Way back towards the end of an issue of that magazine was a picture of an F series (?) camera and prototype 300 mm FD (?) lens. The black & white photo showed the camera tethered to a computer the size of a 21 inch TV. I can remember thinking "I don't get it; you'll need a thousand batteries or a real long extension cord to run this beast".<p>Little did I know it was Canon first publicly announcement of a technology that would change the way we take photographs. And change it has�although you don't see as much evidence of it here on photo.net as you do on photo.sig. Photo.sig seems to feature a lot of extremely good wildlife shots (usually birds in flight) that would be all but impossible to take without IS (unfortunately photo.sig is rampant with tasteless porn type photo's of the very lowest denominator...something that make the site one that is impossible for me to recommend).<p>And so to answer the question of �how slow can you go?�<p>Non-IS; 8x12�s one stop slower then the rule of thumb an 85mm at 1/180 will be fine. Although when all else fails I�ll certainly attempt a �Hail Mary� type shot.<p>With IS? 28-135 IS at the 135 end I�ve gotten 8x10�s at 1/30 of a second�no problem!

<I>photo.sig is rampant with tasteless porn ... impossible for me to recommend</i>

<P>

Yes, and go say so in the feedback forum and watch the feeding frenzy from the "fine art" photo fans. I wouldn't mind if they would just get the "art" off the start page so I could load the site up at the office while I'm eating lunch, or look at it at home before my kids all go to bed.

<P>

Anyway, back to the question at hand. Personally, I don't seriously trust a hand held camera at ANY shutter speed. The simple physics of the situation is that even at 1/1000 the camera can move in your hands, but can't move on a solid tripod unless there's a wind or something else to move it. My rule is that unless I'm shooting action of some sort, I put the camera on a tripod. If I'm shooting something that's moving, I use the fastest practical shutter speed (in other words, I favor a fast shutter over wide DOF).

<P>

I'll now turn the forum over to all of the steady-handed types that can shoot their Leica's hand-held at a half second after drinking a large espresso.

Limited experience has shown that there is also large variation from shot to shot at borderline speeds- you might take 3 shots, have 2 sharp, 1 not. Is that an acceptable speed or not?

Unwanted movement to your camera by involuntary hand or body tremors are the major causes of unsharp pictures, we all agree. More variables that might make you think your camera was shaking are diffraction, shutter bounce, haze and radiant heat to name a few. When trying to hand hold at low shutter speeds also take into consideration the subject and the subject to camera distance Don�t push it with close-ups or fine detail. If your getting out a loupe or time permits then always use a tripod. But that�s not always possible so we have to learn to adapt and be happy with a great shot that�s a little unsharp.

Canon F-1, 50mm or shorter lens, 1/15; Canon A-1, 50mm or shorter lens, 1/30. The F-1's additional mass and construction let it be handheld as slower speeds than the A-1 which is less well damped. Leica M6TTL -- 50mm or shorter lens, I can routinely handhold 1/8. I use an Abrammson minisoft release on all. It's a genuinely helpful accessory, particularly when combined with the breathe/exhale/relax/shoot method. Without the soft release accessory, each speed held would go up a notch. I can't really say what speeds I can handhold with my 85mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses because I use them much less than the shorter lenses, and rarely in low light available light situations.

well I make another question, since we are already here...The "one over focal lenght rule" does "applies" for zoom lenses? (I have been using only fixed focal) I have heard that you need to consider the largest focal length in doing so- say if you are using a 50-500, the minimum recommended shutter speed is 1/500 and not 1/60- Does it make sense? Not to me... shutting with this lens at 1/250 will give you a sharp image I think. Is not that I always follow the "rule", but as said before, it is a starting point.

Don't think <i><b>anything</i></b> will help you get a <b>sharp</b> image with any of the 50-500's I've seen :>}

1 over focal length generally, a stop slower sometimes, especially if I'm using my Stylus Epic. But, I mostly shoot available light candids, and slight motion blur usually ends up adding more to the photograph than it takes away.

 

If I'm shooting slow and wide open, usually getting the focus point right (at f1.4 or f2) is a lot bigger deal than camera shake.

In low light you don't get much choice, but I get usable results at speeds much lower than you're talking about. Here's one from last night, shot with a T90, EI 1600, f1.4, 1/20s:<p>

 

<img src=http://www.derekzeanah.com/albums/Susan/bday00048.sized.jpg><p>

 

(A bigger scan is <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/gallery/Susan/bday00048?full=1>here</a> -- I don't think you'll find it unpleasantly unsharp.)<p>

 

I'm just getting back into SLR's from rangefinder land and I'm discovering focus is more of an issue in low light than movement.<p>

 

Now, with a Leica M6 with an Abrams soft release I can go 1/8-1/15s as well; don't expect perfect sharpness at an 11x14 enlargement, but that's not what my images are about.<p>

 

Kind of on-topic; the largest image I've ever printed/sold was a 30x40" print, and it was shot at 1/125s handheld. Standing within 2-3 feet you could see some blur from camera movement, but not at a reasonable viewing distance.<p>

 

This may be handheld technique, or age, or caffeine/nicotine usage, or whatever. I do a pretty good job with precision rifles too -- maybe that training?

It is interesting that when shooting rifles; pistols; BB & pellet guns; the getting a statistical grouping and offset is the norm. One enjoys shooting at targets; and checking ones personal accuracy. With photography; the "how low a shutter speed can be used" question pops up alot; with rarely any consideration of the statistical nature of the event. Many want a canned answer; with no personal tests. With shooting; these peronal tests are done as a part of training; with Photography & low shutter speeds; these personal tests seem to be avoided by many; instead of learning ones personal limits.

Most any shot can be made sharper with a tripod, and most any tripod shot can be made sharper with a bigger tripod, and even with a tripod, there is some technique to be learned to get the most out of it, but not every image can be captured with a tripod, so it's best to practice handheld technique as well.

 

Check out Doug Herr's website. Much of his work is with Leica R equipment and old-style Telyts handheld with a shoulder pod and Kodachrome 64, and it's pretty sharp--http://www.wildlightphoto.com/

Hi everyone,

 

Some of my best candid portraits have been taken handheld

with my A1 and Fd 300 2.8, I like sharp pics, my standard sized

print is 12x18, I am no photo god, I can take rubbish at 500/sec

and very good pics at 125/sec, haven't done any that im proud of

sharpness wise at less than that. My 70-200 IS has rendered

very good shots from the 200 end handheld at 15/sec. One of the

driving forces behind going to EOS.

 

However what is sharp ? I'm critical of my own work and prefer

sharp pics but many portraits can be way too sharp especially

women, and where would B+W be without grainy images?

Macro on the other hand always needs a tripod, in my natural

light world anyway.

 

Take care all, Scott.

For an interesting statistical take on handholding, read the excellent photo.net article "The Poor Man's IS" by Richard Harris:

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/poormansis/index.html

 

I also think Richard Zevnik's point about mass is very significant. Heavier cameras and lenses like the 55F1.2L, 85F1.2L and so forth (up to a pint of course), will help damp body movement.

 

Lastly, film and digital grain are under heavy attack by software people like Neatimage (whom I've heard one person state, made 800 Superia equal 100Superia after processing by NeatImage) and many others. The day will soon come when use of a 100ASA film or speed will seem quaint, like Kodachrome 25.

That begs the question, What would the result be from using Neatimage with Kodachrome 25?

"That begs the question, What would the result be from using Neatimage with Kodachrome 25?"

 

That's certainly an interesting question, Gregory! I'm not sure, but I suspect you would have to scan a K25 slide at a high enough rez, so the software could properly identify and remove the grain, possibly as high as 6000dpi or so. How high in quality would the final image be I don't know, but I would hope it equaled or surpassed pre-digital medium format. I've asked similar questions several times and have yet to get a definitive answer from someone who has actually done it.

Have you actually used neatimage? I think not, cause if you had I think you'd be amending your post. Yes it appears to kinda work on some photo's but it <b>aint the real meal deal</b>. Try it then post your impressions...I bet they parallel mine!

Dam it, I dropped the last line of my previous post...<p>I was going to say Neatimage will help with grain but there is a difference between grain/noise and blur/softness caused by camera shake<p>

Well Mr. Vanson, another photo.net member has uploaded this Superia 800 shot treated with NeatImage:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=13891384

 

Which the member discusses in the following "noise reduction" thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005eub

 

Not having used NeatImage yet, I would nonetheless, expect a fairly fast rate of improvement (effectiveness and ease of use hopefully) in digital noise reduction in general, akin to what we're seeing in digital cameras. And of course, faster film = less camera shake!

Fast Primes...BUNK!<P>I strapped the disk to my T90 went out and shot with it that way and it did not improve the speed at which I could hand hold my camera. I suspect that also it would be NFG in the darkroom as the disk ain't gonna dissolve if you add it to your developer and as far as digitally goes it is not a magic pancreas...at least for me...I found that yes it will reduce noise in the b&w prints I play around with BUT at the expense of tonality. If once you try it you discover that it is the elixir of life please share the results...but till then I�m going to say that a quality original is gonna reproduce 1000 percent better then a soft & fuzzy example that has been neatimaged.