Handheld - how slow to still get a sharp image?

[Dave16]

<p>This is my best.<br>

1/20th of a second. no tripod, but I leaned against a chair.<br>

<img src="http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/dogbloke/CNV00018%20copy_zpsu34guduc.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="681" /><br>

Leica red-blind 111c, 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar - no filter.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A very sharp 1/20th of a second shot with a 50mm lens requires either a) a chair (or other object) acting as a mini pod, b) elbows against body and choosing the right moment of breathing cycle, or c) luck, when modern image stabilisation or a tripod is not available. Normally the minimum condition for fairly sharp images is 1 / focal length, in seconds, but even that may not be short enough. Luck and good technique can even give a 1/10 or 1/15 second capture a chance.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>38mm, 1/4's, f/4, ISO 800 shooting Raw is the slowest handheld shutter speed I've gotten so far just standing still. (see sample Bridge screengrab below).</p>

<p>The camera holding technique I use for getting sharp shots like the sample below is to press the viewfinder eyepiece and nearby camera casing surface firmly against my eyebrow and forehead (vertical orientation), cheekbone for (horizontal). I also manually focused, AF tends to hunt in similar low lit scenes.</p>

<p>Don't know if this would work with film cameras.</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>When I was using film, I considered anything slower than 1/500th for 135-200mm, 1/250th for 50-100mm, or 1/125th for 28-35mm as suspect. When I used a chest pod I was prepared to go down to 1/60th. Very, very rarely (in desperation) I would try 1/30th with the chest pod for a 21-28mm. You can be lucky with lower speeds, but for reliable sharpness there is no substitute for keeping your speeds high.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>I have read somewhere this trick claimed to be equivalent to a monopod: a string stretched between the hand holding the camera and a foot</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>With the D 750 and the 50 1.8 I have gotten good results at 1/6 and 1/13 - a couple of examples are posted in my Into the Night folder. I shot in competition for many years, and find the process of night photo shooting to respond to nearly the same breath and trigger control. Bracing and using support is invaluable, as is VR! I only use tripods with the big lenses for wildlife and astro shots.</p>

[SCL]

<p>My body is getting a little shaky now, but last weekend I shot several portraits with a 20mm lens (on digital-not film)hand held at about 1/15 sec which came out pretty sharp - even with pixel peeping. Generally I follow the rule-of-hand that you can't really expect good sharpness until you are shooting at least 2x the focal length of the lens you are using. Years ago, the Leica technical critic/guru, Erwin Puts, conducted a series of scientifically controlled experiments and published his results, which showed that because of miniscule movements within the human body, everything from blood flowing thru the veins to imperceptable muscular twitches, that really sharp hand held photos (in the days of pre-anti-shake mechanisms) couldn't be obtained with shutter speeds below 1/500 - and he published photos to illustrate his point.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>On old box cameras in the day when, the I (instant) speed for a 6x9cm negative or so was only rarely faster than 1/30 sec. , and often at 1/15. Over the years before image stabilization, I was sometimes able to get down to 1/15 on a 35mm SLR, but it was wise to shoot more than one at that speed.<br>

With a wall or ledge to brace, I could sometimes, not always, get even slower. If you could set the camera on something and use the self-timer to release, you can do as well as with a tripod, usually.</p>

<p>Here is my 2006 accident - accidentally set aperture priority at f/14 to get a 2.5 sec exposure hand held, but with an image-stabilized EF-S 17-85mm on a Canon 20D.</p><div></div>

[Dave16]

<p>Many thanks for contributing guys - it's interesting to read different opinions of what can and can't be achieved hand-held.<br /> Arthur has described my technique nicely. Although in my example I didn't lean the camera on a chair, rather I leaned (my lower back) on a chair. Otherwise elbows into sides, breathe evenly and wait until the heart slows a fraction (which you can feel with practice). As I have said in a previous post, it's similar to shooting a rifle - where imperceptible movement at the barrel can mean the difference between hitting the target and missing altogether at 30 yards.<br /> I think the choice of camera is very important - the 111c fits my hands nicely and lends itself to slow shooting. The shot itself wasn't a fluke btw. There are four shots of the same effigy on this roll, all similarly sharp, all shot at the same speed. I chose to post this shot because it's the best composition, I think.<br>

Here is another.<br>

<img src="http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/dogbloke/CNV00017%20copy_zps5mmjjpmk.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="685" /><br /> Needless to say, since this was available light in a church, the lens was wide-open. The old 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar is an excellent and versitile lens, I am coming to realise.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Hand held 5minutes ago.Not bad.</p><div></div>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Full image</p><div></div>

[Dave16]

<p>Nice one Harry!<br /><br /><br /> May I challenge you to 1/20th? :-)</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Challenge accepted. The XPro2 doesn't have 1/20th so here is 1/15</p><div></div>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Here is 100% crop</p><div></div>

[john_tran14]

<p>The techniques are interesting and useful and of course the result also depends on the photographer. But one thing I found which is kind of against the math calculation: though some of us says use speed=1/focal length, some other say 1/(2x focal length), and reasonably it is a constant/focal length. Somebody also taught me that rule when I was a kid. But I found that my successful speed depends only on the the camera+lens combo (and depends on myself and my techniques of course), but not on the focal length; i.e not depending on how I zoom the lens. In judging if a shot is stable or not I always look at the 100% view.</p>

[Dave16]

<p>Not bad Harry.<br>

I'll try a couple at 1/15th. Of course we'll have to wait about a week for the film to come back…….<br>

John, I think you are right. The math works up to a point. There is some (a little) skill in taking sharp slow hand-helds which is not factored into formulae, and the camera and lens certainly is a big factor too.<br>

I'm a rank beginner that this, but I'm surprised at how easy it seems to be to obtain sharp shots at slow speeds with the 111c.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>Didier: That does work to improve steadiness, but is no substitute for a tripod. A beanbag is also a good crutch and can conform to the camera or lens shape depending what surface you put it on. Like target shooting, shooting with a camera can benefit from technique. Simply being conscious of your goal when you trip the shutter and controlling your breathing and body movement with your arms in, etc. would gain you about a stop. Bracing on a solid object while doing that could get you another stop or even a bit more. <br>

I've found that most of my shots that suffer from camera movement are because I wasn't paying attention.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I just noticed that no one has put forth the old rule of thumb. Divide the focal length by 100 and that should give you the minimum shutter speed handheld. For example a 300 mm lens is 1/300th of a second. A 20mm lens is 1/20th of a second. Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline to start from.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>. . . I'm surprised at how easy it seems to be to obtain sharp shots at slow speeds with the 111c.</p>

<p>It's well-known that rangefinder or mirrorless cameras often can make hand-holding easier than SLRs and DSLRs. The mirror in single reflex cameras spoils things by moving around inside the camera before every shot. Many cameras have damping to minimize the sound of the mirror slapping up against the top of the camera, but the rapid movement is still there. When using a tripod for critical sharpness, many of us lock the mirror up before each shot.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

For consistent results for projected 35mm Kodachrome slides my choice was 1/250. Anything less was a

crapshoot.

[Robin Smith]

<p>As Charles says: that is essentially my finding too. It is not so much that lower speeds cannot be used, but they cannot <em>reliably</em> produce a sharp image. By sharp in this case I mean one equivalent to shooting a 50mm at 1/500th or so. Some cameras are less prone to shake, but I think this is often over exaggerated, and residual mirror vibrations can be compensated for by a heavier and more easily grasped camera.</p>

[Dave16]

<p>Hector,<br>

All the SLRs that I used to use produced the shake you describe. But the 111c is much easier to shoot at slow speeds than my M6 too.<br>

I think that is due to the smaller, lighter body/lens combination.</p>

 

[glen_h]

<p>Often enough, at least in film days, I needed to go to 1/15, or even 1/8. In those cases, it is picture at all, maybe not the sharpest, but not obvious movement. If possible lean against something, otherwise stay as still as possible. Inhale, hold your breath for a few seconds, slowly press the shutter release. I might have done that more in the rangefinder days, when the films weren't as fast. Then take a second or third shot for extra insurance.</p>

[Dave16]

<p><strong>Don't</strong> hold your breath if you want a steady shot!<br>

Any rifle-shooter knows that holding your breath speeds up your heart so you get body-movement with your heartbeat. The accepted technique for shooting a rifle is to slow your breathing down, and wait until your heart rate settles - then take the shot.<br>

Your point about the extra shots is spot-on Glen. Apologies for the correction, but it is a better way to achieve steadiness.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>David, your point is well taken. Controlling your breathing is a better description. The worst is taking in a big breath and holding it. However, when I was taught to shoot competitively the point was to try to pull the trigger after exhaling and relaxing (a conscious effort). You only have to "hold" it for a fraction of a second it is not like holding it for 60 seconds.</p>