Minimum shutter speed hand held to avoid shake

J

jamesev

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,216
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I know this sort of depends on how steady you are and also recommended minimum sheet speed is often cited at 1/2x (focus length) but what would you say is the slowest shutter speed generally before you really should get onto a tripod?
 
1/focal length was the generally accepted value.
It also depends if it has VR and how good that is.
My Tamron 24-70 I can use at about 1/10 second - though I normally use it at 1/2 a second as I use flash.
 
depends on the lens, 50mm they say 1/50-60. 200mm 1/100-200. the further away the more shaky :) IS brings it down a bit
 
I almost hate to say it (due to the risk of starting the ensuing debate) but the above rule is dependent on sensor size :)
 
1/2xfocal length for crop cameras (or 1/1xcrop factor if you're picky).

However...

If you have IS you can go slower.
If you can brace against something you can go slower. Even leaning against a wall can help.
If you have steady hands you can go slower. The more people I teach the more I notice that ladies generally have steadier hands. I've seen sharp images from some of my female students at speeds as low as 1/10sec at 55mm with no IS. On APSC cameras!

My hands are so shaky I need to do 1/2xFL on 35mm (no IS)

In short - it depends on how steady your hands are and your environment. So as twist says, you should probably experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Also a heavier camera might help to damp body movement ...
 
The rule of thumb is simple and effective - but it's a rule of thumb! So the caveats are...

Everyone is different - you need to test for yourself
The subject matter changes the rules dramatically - so you need to take that into account
 
I suppose it can depend on how big the picture is and/or how closely you look or pixel peep.

Back when I was taking a lot of pictures at gigs and at nights out with a Nikon SLR and 1,600 film I was often at slow shutter speeds but no one ever complained about motion blur as the printed photos were quite small and no one could pixel peep them at 100% on screen because they didn't have the tech :D

But that was then. These days I like to be at least 1x focal length + a bit more or possibly focal length x2 but in reality the shutter speed is possibly going to be decided by the subject. For example if I'm taking a picture of a person who isn't stood like a statue posing 1/50 sec with a 50mm lens is very probably going to result in a lot of motion blur as is possibly 1/100 too and if I want to freeze normal movement I'm possibly going to want to be at 1/160 - 1/250 or so depending on what's going on. If I'm taking a picture of a squirrel I'm possibly going to want an even faster shutter and if I'm taking a picture of a wild flower and there's a breeze I may be pushing the shutter speed up too. I once took a still life picture with my DSLR and a 20mm lens at 1sec and it was sharp but I wouldn't claim to be able to do that to order if I could do it again at all.

So... it depends. If it's down to how steady I can hold a camera and take a picture and the subject isn't moving at all then these days it's shutter speed x 1.5-2 to be sure it'll be good on screen for pixel peeping.
 
When I was 18, I found that with a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR, I could detect the difference between 1/125 and 1/250. So that's my personal answer. Testing using a pencil torch in a dark room is simple if you want to try it.
 
Thank you for the responses. It sounds like much below 1/10th is starting to get into the realms of losing sharpness (with all the factors considered)
 
Weight of the camera makes a difference - heavy cameras are intrinsically more stable - as does length of lens - long lenses are intrinsically less stable than short lenses. Using a viewfinder is more stable than live view. Back in the day, I could shoot my Zenit E quite well at 1/30 but I doubt I could do that now as I am less stable myself.
 
I find anything below 1/125 at 50mm with non image stabilised lenses can be a gamble for me. I've found it can also depend on the camera: I have a folding camera from the 1950s with 1/100 and 1/300 as the two highest shutter speeds. The shutter button mechanism is a bit on the stiff side on this camera and I was disappointed with the sharpness of photos taken at 1/100. Thinking this might be down to camera shake I tried again at 1/300 and found the results were pin sharp. So there we have it, the effort of pressing the shutter was moving the camera just enough to soften the image when I used speeds of 1/100th or less hand held with this camera.
 
jamesev said:
Thank you for the responses. It sounds like much below 1/10th is starting to get into the realms of losing sharpness (with all the factors considered)
Click to expand...

But what would you want to shoot at 1/10? The world moves even if we don't and I often struggle to think what people are taking pictures of at such low shutter speeds.
 
twist said:
You need to experiment.
Click to expand...
This. I find that some cameras are easier to hand hold at lower shutter speeds than others. A good example, I find my D810 with my 80-200 requires 1/640s to guarantee a sharp image and as high as 1/1000s with my 300 prime. Below this I can still achieve sharp images, but it's more of a lottery.

Even with a stabiliser, getting sharp images below 1/30s is highly dependent on your technique, the quality of the stabiliser and the camera shutter.
 
I am happy at about 1/5 sec but some can manage a 1 sec or more
 
There are numerous factors as explained above, but don't forget your own heartbeat !!!

I can handhold at speeds much slower than a pal of mine can, but after 1/30th at 100% there is generally some movement showing - though it doesn't often matter enough to worry about

However, if you shoot slow speeds on your camera's highest burst rate you'll find some are clearly sharper than others, and this is usually your own heartbeat adding to the problem. Hence, shoot for 1 sec and you should have images that are sharper than during your pulse beat

Dave
 
I got some semi reasonable results using ~1/4s with a 300mm equivalent lens at the weekend (the lens was wide open & I shot at 3200ISO but the images were a bit underexposed in all honesty). On other occasions I've had camera shake using 1/400 with a normal lens.
If you know you're pushing the limits you take more care & can be lucky well outside the accepted safe zone. When rushing to frame & grab a fleeting moment things can become much more difficult.

@woof woof 1/10s is hardly a long exposure. In low light conditions it's often more than cameras can manage, and sometimes photographers WANT to blur the movement. Capturing life exactly as the eye see's it is a very narrow field of photography.
 
Last edited:
jamesev said:
Thank you for the responses. It sounds like much below 1/10th is starting to get into the realms of losing sharpness (with all the factors considered)
Click to expand...

As said everyone is different but I think sharpness would be lost well before 1/10s for many people, certainly for me.

Dave
 
Dual IBIS, camera resting on your thigh, hold your breath .... I second. :cool:
 
I had had this question myself in the past & googling gave me many "rules" not answers. So just experimented to find out for me.

My Oly with dual IS I can hand hold a 2 second shot of a still scene. If there is something moving in it or its windy I can't get near that. Turns out I don't stand as still as I thought in even the slightest breeze.

I do use this to my advantage as I can get smooth water hand held on my Oly which I would never achieved with other cameras. (like moving water on a log flume)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top