ne0sk
newbie
Reged: 29/06/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
Hi, I'm aware of the rule of thumb that when hand holding the minimum shutter speed is roughly the same as the focal lentgh. However, for the non-full framed cameras, does tis rule need to include the 1.6x factor too? I'm inclined to think "no" but it is getting late!
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2627
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Say you use a 100mm lens with a full frame sensor and use the lowest shutter speed according to the “rule”, 100th second at ISO 100. Supposedly the photo should be acceptably sharp and a crop from the centre part will be sharp too.
With the same lens on an APC sized sensor camera all that is happening is that you are only using a portion of the projected image, a crop, it’s still a 100mm lens but the field of view is reduced to that of a 150mm (or 160mm on Canon) compared to that of a full frame (35mm) camera. So surely the old rule-of-thumb should still apply as for a 100mm lens?
I know others hold the entirely opposite view and, of course, the waters are muddied with image stabilisation 
--------------------
Rog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4245
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Say you use a 100mm lens with a full frame sensor and use the lowest shutter speed according to the “rule”, 100th second at ISO 100. Supposedly the photo should be acceptably sharp and a crop from the centre part will be sharp too.
Hmmm, it all depends how much you want to enlarge...
IMO the "rule of thumb" is precisely that. It's the point at which you need to take extra care. With a digital camera, you can usually get insurance by taking some extra shots with a faster shutter speed and the ISO wound up ... with film, or digital at the limit of ISO, simply take extra shots, one the principle that the more you take, the greater the chance that one will be sufficiently shake free.
If you have IS/VR turned on, you should be safe at the "rule of thumb" speed, and a bit slower than that. But what you can get away with depends on your hand and your gear... if you need to know the limits, experiment. I tried hand-holding my Canon 5D fitted with 24-105 f/4L IS lens, set at 24mm, at 1/2 sec with IS turned on and got an acceptably shake free result. I've no idea whether this would work for you or not; I was surprised it worked for me and I certainly wouldn't advocate this as "standard practice", but I will have some confidence next time I find myself without a tripod in light bad enough to justify such a long exposure.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 979
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I thought it rather depended on how steady your hand is. I have a photograph in front of me taken on the underground in the 50s at one second that is acceptable - couldn't do it now. 
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2204
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Quote:
Say you use a 100mm lens with a full frame sensor and use the lowest shutter speed according to the “rule”, 100th second at ISO 100. Supposedly the photo should be acceptably sharp and a crop from the centre part will be sharp too.
With the same lens on an APC sized sensor camera all that is happening is that you are only using a portion of the projected image, a crop, it’s still a 100mm lens but the field of view is reduced to that of a 150mm (or 160mm on Canon) compared to that of a full frame (35mm) camera. So surely the old rule-of-thumb should still apply as for a 100mm lens?
I know others hold the entirely opposite view and, of course, the waters are muddied with image stabilisation
You're ignoring the fact that, to produce a print the same size from the smaller sensor, you have to enlarge the image more and so the effect of any shake is also magnified.
It's not the focal length that determines the likelihood of having visible shake - it's the field of view. And this changes as the sensor size changes so, yes, you should take the magnification factor into account. If you're not convinced, look up 'circle of confusion' and see how values for this also change according to sensor size, for exactly the same reason.
--------------------
John
The best things in life are not things.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36434
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Precisely because it's a rule of thumb, and the effectiveness varies from individual to individual, camera to camera and depends on a multitude of other factors, there's no real correct answer (as per Beeyaybee's response). However, the magnification is indeed the key factor all other things being equal, so John's spot on; the only way to know what works for you is to try it, though.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4063
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
Sukkyttansee!
In other words, YOU can handhold what YOU can handhold - and YOU may be happier with more motion blur than the next (or previous) man (or woman). It depends very much on conditions as well - it's harder to stop a little shake creeping in if it's windy or cold or you're excited. Outfit size and weight can have an affect too - a heavier camera/lens combo will sometimes be steadier than a lighter one - but the effort required to hold the combo up can cause a shake too.
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9160
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
I tend to apply the 1.6x factor, when I remember that is, as I know I tend to be a bit wobbly at slow speeds...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
hil26
journeyman
Reged: 07/11/2007
Posts: 76
Loc: North Wales
|
|
I always add a bit more anyway, as my hands are not as shake free as they used to be.
Some people have steadier hands than others, so take crop factor into account, and my case, then some
|
zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 831
Loc: London
|
|
Exactly like shooting, it's all to do with body positioning and breathing. As others have said the 1/focal length is just an approximation anyway, the photographer will have a much greater effect than x1.3 or x1.6.
--------------------
Regards
ZX9 (Keith)  
My Flickr Pictures
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2043
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Even one's medication has some effect. Beta blockers are advantageous for hand held photography, rifle shooting and snooker as well as their proper purpose.
There are so many personal variables that the old simple rule requires a personal modification.
|
sirmy
Reged: 31/03/2003
Posts: 308
|
|
There was an article about this about five ears ago in the BJP. They did a comparison of an exposure taken with the camera clamped on a tripod and one hand held, the exposures were the same and adequate to satisfy the rule of thumb. The enlargement from the handheld shot was noticeably softer than the tripod mounted one.
So handholding will never get 100% from your camera/lens combination but it's probably up to the individual at which point the degradation of the image becomes a problem... remember Cappa's images from D - day.
|
KevP
newbie
Reged: 27/09/2005
Posts: 11
|
|
True, and Capa's d-day photo's were mostly Contax II shots not his later leica
Sorry, off topic
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
