Lowest shutter speed without a tripod

C

Chumpalot

Messages
669
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening,

After a quick search I'm unable to find what I'm after.

These past few days I've been experimenting with how low I can go with the shutter speed in order to be able to raise aperture and get more light (meaning lower ISO).

I'd like to think I have quite a steady hand, 1/60th and 1/50th don't give me any noticeable blur on photos. I have tried 1/30th but don't dare go any lower.

Generally speaking (although I assume it differs from person to person), how low would one go before blur becomes a real issue and a tripod is necessary. I'm just trying to establish a sort of cut off point where if light is low enough the slowest shutter speed I'd use.

Thanks for your help in advance

Dave
 
I guess it depends how steady your stance is, the conditions of the shot, and the quality of your IS. I have managed - though perched my shoulder hard up against a lamp-post - a shot of close to 1 second that's not too bad.
 
laser_jock99 said:
Also highly dependent on the focal length of the lens you're using. Above 300mm a tripod is required even at high shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
Sorry laser_jock, have to disagree with you. This is not necessarily the case. All my shots with my 50-500 and 70-300 +1.4x combo are taken hand held with no tripod.

It all depends on your kit, the quality of the IS you're using, and your stance. Yes of course it gets harder to take blur free images at higher focal lengths, but to say above 300mm a tripod is needed is not quite true.
 
I don't need to tripod to shoot 420mm.

I can do 500mm as well on some days....

I can do sharp exposures with a wide angle coming up to about half a second (17-35 on full frame)
 
It depends. Massively :eek:

You don't mention what lens you are using, but there is the old rule of thumb mentioned above which is that your shutter speed should not be less (longer time) than the focal length of the lens. With your D40, this must be multiplied by the crop factor 1.5x.

But that is only a very rough guide. There is a huge difference between standing comfortably with your elbows braced, and then kneeling on one knee, streching out to get the right angle.

IS makes a big difference. Brilliant invention. But bear in mind that camera shake never goes away, it is only reduced to an acceptable level. You need to decide for yourself.

One other thought, even though you might be able to hand hold down to 1/8sec or something with IS, subject movement becomes a problem and I find that with people pics anything longer than 1/30sec is risky from that point of view, but of course that is hugely variable, too!

Suck it and see, as you have been doing. You'll know where the danger zone is then. I know when I run the risk of bad camera shake and if I can, I shoot several frames. I generally then get at least one sharp frame, but until I see the results I couldn't tell you which one it will be.
 
Thank you all for the comments. Very helpful indeed. I never took subject movement or focal length into account as I'd just finished taking a few shots in the garden. 18-70 DX @ 18mm mostly.

With regards laser_jock's comment about the tripod. I always understood that at higher focal lengths camera shake isn't necessarily more, just more obvious. It still occurs at the lower focal lengths just isn't as noticeable. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
sidxms said:
You can generally go 1/focal length and even lower with IS.
Click to expand...

This works for me most of the time. If light is low, obviously boost ISO as much as you can, and depending on how you feel you're camera's metering is maybe -1/3 on exposure comp.
 
lay off the caffeine and use the correct stance...better results :)
what about those techniques of using a 'mooring line' to your foot or craddling the camera into your chest. don't forget the old breath out, snap, breath in technique
 
Chumpalot said:
Thank you all for the comments. Very helpful indeed. I never took subject movement or focal length into account as I'd just finished taking a few shots in the garden. 18-70 DX @ 18mm mostly.

With regards laser_jock's comment about the tripod. I always understood that at higher focal lengths camera shake isn't necessarily more, just more obvious. It still occurs at the lower focal lengths just isn't as noticeable. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe there is some misunderstanding here. Your hands obviously don't shake any more just because you have a longer lens, but that movement is magnified by focal length. Hence the 1/focal length (x crop factor) shutter speed guide.

Try holding pair of binoculars absolutely still. Impossible. 8x binos are generally reckonned to be about 400mm equivalent on full frame, which is 250mm on crop format.
 
HoppyUK said:
Maybe there is some misunderstanding here. Your hands obviously don't shake any more just because you have a longer lens, but that movement is magnified by focal length. Hence the 1/focal length (x crop factor) shutter speed guide.

Try holding pair of binoculars absolutely still. Impossible. 8x binos are generally reckonned to be about 400mm equivalent on full frame, which is 250mm on crop format.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I meant. Perhaps I didn't word it that well. Too much Birthday cake :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top