min shutter speed
- Thread starter holty
- Start date
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
In theory 1/750 but other factors come into play e.g. are you on a tripod & gimbal, does the lens have VR?
If hand-held then you need to factor in your ability/inability to hold the lens firmly ... you may need well above 1/750 if your ability to hold the lens steady is lacking (not to be underestimated with a heavy long telephoto).
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think you should worry about whether it's "supposed" to be 1/500th or 1/750th. The range of variability from one person to another is far greater than that. For example, with a 70-200m lens at the 200mm end and no IS/VR, I'm generally happy at 1/100th but my wife needs to stick above 1/500th.
The only way to answer this question properly is to test it yourself. But at least the normal rule of thumb suggests that you should start your resting at around 1/500th or 1/750th, rather than say 1/60th or 1/4000th.
The only way to answer this question properly is to test it yourself. But at least the normal rule of thumb suggests that you should start your resting at around 1/500th or 1/750th, rather than say 1/60th or 1/4000th.
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's very much a rule of thumb and (as said) varies from person to person not to mention the person's state of mind and body. Raised heart rate after managing to stalk some wildlife is likely to bring the required SS down a stop or 2 while a Yoga practitioner can bring their heartrate down pretty quickly so may well be able to hand hold a lower shutter speed. As we get older, the chances are that we need a faster shutter speed than we used to - I know I do!
Since the rule of thumb dates back to 35mm film days, it refers to the effective focal length on 35mm film or full frame digital so on Dx bodies, a 500mm lens would need about 1/750th (without IS/OS/VR etc..)
Since the rule of thumb dates back to 35mm film days, it refers to the effective focal length on 35mm film or full frame digital so on Dx bodies, a 500mm lens would need about 1/750th (without IS/OS/VR etc..)
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
As others have said, it's just a rule of thumb, and therefore affected greatly by all sorts of variables.
A long time ago, pre digital and when we were forced to shoot at 100 ISO to get halfway reasonable image quality, I used to get a pretty high success rate at VERY slow shutter speeds - but I put that down to my skill as a rifle shooter, not as a photographer, because years of practice meant that I was able to keep absolutely still, and usually managed to brace my body or camera against something.
A long time ago, pre digital and when we were forced to shoot at 100 ISO to get halfway reasonable image quality, I used to get a pretty high success rate at VERY slow shutter speeds - but I put that down to my skill as a rifle shooter, not as a photographer, because years of practice meant that I was able to keep absolutely still, and usually managed to brace my body or camera against something.
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Point of semantics, you will never combat camera shake with a high shutter speed; you will minimize 'motion blur' that may be caused by camera shake....
You will defeat camera shake by better camera support; how you hold it, using viewfinder rather than preview screen; correct camera holding, bracing elbows, modulating breathing; or supporting with a tripod, monopod, beanbag or other fixed support.
But then there is the question of subject, angle and intent.. If you are taking a photo of a stained glass window in a church? Its probably been around a few years, it's not likely to rush off in a hurry! You don't necessarily need a particularly high shutter speed to avoid potential motion blur, just good camera support. If you are taking a photo of a marathon runner, you probably need a fairly high shutter speed to capture them before they run out of the shot; but how high a shutter speed depends on the framing and angle; If they are running directly towards you, and its a longer shot, the subject maybe less than 2/3 the height of the frame, their position and size in the frame wont change very much as they move; on the other hand if they are running past you, side on, filling the frame, then there will likely be an awful lot more discernible 'change' in the scene in any given shutter interval.
AND you may want to exploit that to actually get some motion blur to convey the dynamic of the situation; For example, using a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the body of a humming bird hovering over a flower, but one slow enough its wings still blur to show that movement. Or you may want to 'pan' with your marathon runner so that the runner is captured reasonably sharp, with a little blur around pumping legs and arms showing the motion and effort, whilst the background is more significantly blurred by motion to lift the subject into prominence from the setting. Panning, deliberately moving the camera during exposure, then makes the question of support more intricate, as you cant simply rigidly support it, and have to carefully control motions.
SO, the 'as fast as your lens length' guide of old. And do you apply the crop factor?
Well, it is only a guideline; the appropriate shutter speed should be selected from above primary considerations of subject, situation & intent, and 'unwanted' motion blur from camera shake, tackled as first course by appropriate camera holding...
The rule is a legacy of 35mm film era, in so far as that promoted the use of high tele-photo lenses so much, which was where the effective frame magnification they offered was likely to show more pronounced unwanted motion blur from hand holding; and it was a fairly reasonable 'guide', within certain limits.... for example, I have an old Russian Zenit,which has a fastest shutter speed of just 1/500th. My much more modern and sophisticated Olympus OM4 only has 1/2oooth as its fastest shutter, and many other's were rarely any faster. Popular 'big tele' with Birders in that era were Centon 'Mirror' lenses in either 5oomm or 1ooomm guises, with a fixed, f4 or f5.6 aperture; Add a limited choice of film speeds, probably no more than ISO400, fixed for the roll, you'd then have the small problems that shutter speed was the only control you had left to balance your exposure, and even before you start, you have a lens begging a shutter speed higher than your camera provided!!!!
Going the other way, of course, you might think you would be 'safe' using a 35mm wide angle lens, and any shutter over 1/3oth would 'do'.... so how did so many people manage to get blurry shots with 35mm Instamatics with such lenses and slowest shutter speeds? Probably because they were close to their subject, and filling the frame with them, 'zooming with their feet' got the same relative frame to subject ratio and the same degree of motion blur across that frame in any given time interval. So it was never a particularly hard and fast rule. AND the 'crop factor', then not so often acknowledged as such between the different formats of 110 cartridge, 35mm cassette and 120roll film, still existed and was even larger, and not deemed so 'significant' in the hand holding issue, compared to the subject, support and framing.
So, as a guideline, on a modern Crop-sensor DSLR... it's still a reasonable one, and with a 1.5ish Crop-Factor effectively magnifying the subject to frame proportions that much more, and equally any motion blur during shutter interval, adding the crop factor equivalence to the suggested shutter speed, probably worth factoring in...
Whether VR systems are any compensation is another can of worms... and I have to say, in my experience, 'probably not' or at least 'not a lot'! when my daughter started her GCSE photography and my O/H got a DSLR so not to be left out, we had a shutter-speed 'limbo' to see how low we could each go with and without VR, with a kit lens; on a static subject shot at 35mm, (50mm FF-Equiv), my O/H who doesn't have the steadiest hand, was struggling at anything much under 1/50th, even with a coffee mug only filling 1/3 the frame. Same shot at same shutter closer up, filling 3/4 the frame, it was discernibly blurry; Daughter was down to around 1/15th and managing to keep them pretty sharp even with close up mug filling the frame; With big hands and years of practice, I managed to hand hold down to about 1/1oth or 1/5th without significant blur, but I couldn't get any lower with the VR switched 'on'. Helped shakey O/H hand hold a stop slower. Similar experiment with the 300VR, didn't show any greater benefit at longer lens lengths; where it's still more a matter of subject to frame size than actual lens length; and that the suggested advantages of VR systems, are probably slightly over inflated in the ad claims and reviews, and the idea they can let you hand hold two or three stops slower, probably only hold true in a few situations; good technique and hand holding still seem to be much more effective, IMO!
For What It's Worth; in my experience of very long lenses; hand holding and camera shake is a 'niggle'; first 'problem' is with such a small field of view actually framing with one! Then, even at relatively conservative apertures, the Depth of Focus, particularly for smaller, closer subjects can become incredibly shallow and hence critical, so 'blur' can be a compound effect of subject motion blur, camera shake and simply out of focus, and so a smaller aperture to increase DoF may actually ,make as much difference as upping the shutter.
But short answer is there isn't one, but shutter speed shouldn't be directly linked to the lens length or equiv lens length, but the framing of your subject you get from it, and then set on the situation and intent of your shot.
You will defeat camera shake by better camera support; how you hold it, using viewfinder rather than preview screen; correct camera holding, bracing elbows, modulating breathing; or supporting with a tripod, monopod, beanbag or other fixed support.
But then there is the question of subject, angle and intent.. If you are taking a photo of a stained glass window in a church? Its probably been around a few years, it's not likely to rush off in a hurry! You don't necessarily need a particularly high shutter speed to avoid potential motion blur, just good camera support. If you are taking a photo of a marathon runner, you probably need a fairly high shutter speed to capture them before they run out of the shot; but how high a shutter speed depends on the framing and angle; If they are running directly towards you, and its a longer shot, the subject maybe less than 2/3 the height of the frame, their position and size in the frame wont change very much as they move; on the other hand if they are running past you, side on, filling the frame, then there will likely be an awful lot more discernible 'change' in the scene in any given shutter interval.
AND you may want to exploit that to actually get some motion blur to convey the dynamic of the situation; For example, using a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the body of a humming bird hovering over a flower, but one slow enough its wings still blur to show that movement. Or you may want to 'pan' with your marathon runner so that the runner is captured reasonably sharp, with a little blur around pumping legs and arms showing the motion and effort, whilst the background is more significantly blurred by motion to lift the subject into prominence from the setting. Panning, deliberately moving the camera during exposure, then makes the question of support more intricate, as you cant simply rigidly support it, and have to carefully control motions.
SO, the 'as fast as your lens length' guide of old. And do you apply the crop factor?
Well, it is only a guideline; the appropriate shutter speed should be selected from above primary considerations of subject, situation & intent, and 'unwanted' motion blur from camera shake, tackled as first course by appropriate camera holding...
The rule is a legacy of 35mm film era, in so far as that promoted the use of high tele-photo lenses so much, which was where the effective frame magnification they offered was likely to show more pronounced unwanted motion blur from hand holding; and it was a fairly reasonable 'guide', within certain limits.... for example, I have an old Russian Zenit,which has a fastest shutter speed of just 1/500th. My much more modern and sophisticated Olympus OM4 only has 1/2oooth as its fastest shutter, and many other's were rarely any faster. Popular 'big tele' with Birders in that era were Centon 'Mirror' lenses in either 5oomm or 1ooomm guises, with a fixed, f4 or f5.6 aperture; Add a limited choice of film speeds, probably no more than ISO400, fixed for the roll, you'd then have the small problems that shutter speed was the only control you had left to balance your exposure, and even before you start, you have a lens begging a shutter speed higher than your camera provided!!!!
Going the other way, of course, you might think you would be 'safe' using a 35mm wide angle lens, and any shutter over 1/3oth would 'do'.... so how did so many people manage to get blurry shots with 35mm Instamatics with such lenses and slowest shutter speeds? Probably because they were close to their subject, and filling the frame with them, 'zooming with their feet' got the same relative frame to subject ratio and the same degree of motion blur across that frame in any given time interval. So it was never a particularly hard and fast rule. AND the 'crop factor', then not so often acknowledged as such between the different formats of 110 cartridge, 35mm cassette and 120roll film, still existed and was even larger, and not deemed so 'significant' in the hand holding issue, compared to the subject, support and framing.
So, as a guideline, on a modern Crop-sensor DSLR... it's still a reasonable one, and with a 1.5ish Crop-Factor effectively magnifying the subject to frame proportions that much more, and equally any motion blur during shutter interval, adding the crop factor equivalence to the suggested shutter speed, probably worth factoring in...
Whether VR systems are any compensation is another can of worms... and I have to say, in my experience, 'probably not' or at least 'not a lot'! when my daughter started her GCSE photography and my O/H got a DSLR so not to be left out, we had a shutter-speed 'limbo' to see how low we could each go with and without VR, with a kit lens; on a static subject shot at 35mm, (50mm FF-Equiv), my O/H who doesn't have the steadiest hand, was struggling at anything much under 1/50th, even with a coffee mug only filling 1/3 the frame. Same shot at same shutter closer up, filling 3/4 the frame, it was discernibly blurry; Daughter was down to around 1/15th and managing to keep them pretty sharp even with close up mug filling the frame; With big hands and years of practice, I managed to hand hold down to about 1/1oth or 1/5th without significant blur, but I couldn't get any lower with the VR switched 'on'. Helped shakey O/H hand hold a stop slower. Similar experiment with the 300VR, didn't show any greater benefit at longer lens lengths; where it's still more a matter of subject to frame size than actual lens length; and that the suggested advantages of VR systems, are probably slightly over inflated in the ad claims and reviews, and the idea they can let you hand hold two or three stops slower, probably only hold true in a few situations; good technique and hand holding still seem to be much more effective, IMO!
For What It's Worth; in my experience of very long lenses; hand holding and camera shake is a 'niggle'; first 'problem' is with such a small field of view actually framing with one! Then, even at relatively conservative apertures, the Depth of Focus, particularly for smaller, closer subjects can become incredibly shallow and hence critical, so 'blur' can be a compound effect of subject motion blur, camera shake and simply out of focus, and so a smaller aperture to increase DoF may actually ,make as much difference as upping the shutter.
But short answer is there isn't one, but shutter speed shouldn't be directly linked to the lens length or equiv lens length, but the framing of your subject you get from it, and then set on the situation and intent of your shot.
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's no universal answer to that - it depends on you, the balance of the lens/camera combination and how much "bounce" the camera generates when the mirror flies up etc.
The best way to answer your question is to suggest an experiment, which on digital won't cost anything. Position a pencil torch a reasonable distance away from you, turn out the lights and then photograph the stationary spot of light with your 500mm lens. Make at least 3 exposures at each shutter speed that you think is reasonable, and then see what you need to be a) reliably sharp and b) sharp when you're lucky.
As far as the rule of thumb goes, at age 18 I could see the difference in sharpness between 1/125th and 1/250th sec with a 50mm lens on 35mm when handholding, despite the "rule" suggesting I'd be fine at 1/50th.
Last edited:
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Based on the popular rule of thumb, the answer is 1/750sec. The theory is based on magnification and the fact that the numbers happen to coincide with full-frame focal lengths is purely coincidental. The crop factor must be applied.
When you're on the hand-holding limit, results tend to be very variable from one shot to the next, and there's great safety in numbers. If you run some tests (always a good idea to know where your personal limits lie) then in a sequence of maybe a handful of consecutive frames, some will be badly blurred, some a bit blurred, and quite likely one or two will be pretty sharp. So, if shutter speed is marginal, always shoot a sequence if you can with the camera in continuous drive mode.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I go for 2-3x FL if possible and suitable... there is a big difference between "adequately sharp" and "critically sharp."
But it is definitely pixel density dependent. Back when APS was 8MP and FF was 12MP I could easily handhold well below 1x FL (w/o IS/VR/OS). Once APS hit 16MP and FF hit 24MP I had to increase to *at least* 1x FL. At 24 MP APS and 36+ MP FF I need even more SS. The smaller the pixels are, the less movement it takes to cause a point to move across multiple pixels... the reason crop factor is typically applied is because, if you compare a 12 MP APS and a 12 MP FF, the APS pixels are smaller/denser. But it really isn't quite that simple any more...
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
At Rally GB at the weekend, I've taken to 'photographer watching', and the guy who got first prize for 'WTF do you think you're doing' had a 1d series with a super television lens who from being stood on a rock squatted down to shoot. I could see the lens wobble from 3 metres a day. He maybe believes that the IS is the answer to his problems, but I just wonder how disappointed he was when he downloaded his images, and whether he'll ever work out what he's doing wrong.
rich_
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 374
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a shame how some of us (me included) seem to waste time watching others to critique. If someones clearly making a mess of something then why don't we take the time to ask them why, perhaps we are wrong with our assumptions?
I'm terrible for this as well. I'll be having a stroll in Hyde Park and see countless people using cameras in the most bizarre ways, lens hoods backwards, staring at the screen from 2ft away.
I'd add that I think that @Phil V is a very helpful person on here. It's no way directed at him, it more just reminded me of my behaviour as well. I should try harder to help rather than guffaw
I'm terrible for this as well. I'll be having a stroll in Hyde Park and see countless people using cameras in the most bizarre ways, lens hoods backwards, staring at the screen from 2ft away.
I'd add that I think that @Phil V is a very helpful person on here. It's no way directed at him, it more just reminded me of my behaviour as well. I should try harder to help rather than guffaw
Last edited:
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder what response you would get explaining to some random person that their lens hood is on backwards?
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A steady hand helps, I know that at my age I can't hold the exposures I used to be able to when I was a lot younger.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I have offered unsolicited 'advice' to strangers in the past, but i find it embarrassing.
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It does depend on what you shoot - for airshows I am using a 150-600 at typically 1/200 or 1/250 as any faster means there is no prop blur... obviously far more misses than hits!
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, using Canon and an L lens at that, what do you expect?!
Very occasionally, I'll whip the cap off and zoom out without turning the hood round. However, that's only when I've stopped at the side of the road, leapt out of the car, grabbed the body with the long tele on it and aimed so theres no direct sunlight falling on the front element. Once I've got a shot or 2 of whatever on the card, I'll have a quick chimp to see if I've got the shot and if not, I'll "do it properly".