Depends entirely upon your individual circumstances. I used to be able to hand-hold a 300mm lens (35mm film) down to about 1/10 sec and still get something useable. Not any more - 1/200 is about my limit now, even with correct technique and bracing the camera against something..
Experiment and find *your* limits - good technique and steady hands help with quick grab shots that you might otherwise miss, but if there's time, a tripod will make certain!Rob.
If you're bored...http://braveulysses.deviantart.com/gallery.
'Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything.' Sydney Smith (1771-1845)..
The old rule-of-thumb is that you should use a shutter speed whose number is at least as big as the focal length of the lens (e.g. for a 200mm lens, use 1/250 or quicker; for a 28mm lens, use 1/30 sec or quicker). This relates to 35mm film cameras - with DSLR's having a crop factor of about 1.5, a 200 mm lens on the DSLR gives the same maginification (of both image and shake) as a 300 mm lens on a 35mm camera, so following the above rule you should use 1/500 sec to be on the safe side..
If you can brace yourself against something (and hold your breath) it is perfectly possible with practice to use longer shutter speeds, although a sharp shot hand-held at 1/4 sec without image stabilisation would be remarkable! (Maybe you are remarkable...)Mike..
Both former replys are correct and good advice. Everyone is different and some can handhold a camera at slower shutter speeds better than others. Usually it is reccomended to use a tripod at shutter speeds below 1/60 sec. On a windy day you may have to use one at slightly faster shutter speeds. Best idea is to experiment and see how steady you can hold your camera at different speeds. Photofourm 1..
If you're fit, strong and have some experience shooting rifles then you should be able to go below 1/30 without much problems.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
I don't know why I remembered 1/4, but that's definitely not what the speed was. I just tried it again it was really blurry. .
Mike703 wrote:.
... although a sharp shot hand-held at 1/4 sec without imagestabilisation would be remarkable! (Maybe you are remarkable...)Mike..
The question as posed has little meaning. The answer varies hugely depending on the focal length of the lens you are using..
You can take steady shots with a 20 mm lens at far slower shutter speeds (say 1/20th sec) than you can a 500mm lens. The more focal length, the more every wobble is magnified..
And of course the weight of longer lenses adds to this..
Which is why Image Stabilisation or Vibration Reduction is one of the miracles of our age, ranking right there along with the Virgin Birth..
Read in some article that you shouldn't go below 1/30 shutter speed if you don't have any anti-shake system or a tripod. Is this really true? I tried some shots with 1/4 shutter speed and I couldn't really see much blurring. Am I fooling myself here?.
What's the slowest shutter speed you guys would recommend if I don't have any assistance from any anti-shake or a tripod, to prevent blurring caused by shaking hands?..
You are looking at the question from the wrong direction. you are saying what is the slowest shutter speed? it is the wrong question. the question should be what level of image quality is acceptable to you for your purpose? to me, my IQ has to be good enough to enlarge to 16x20 or 20x30 for ALL shots I take. if someone is going to put the shot on a monitor, and that is all, then you can get away with a lot less interms of IQ..
I know that for me the limit is 1/60 and still get the the enlargement sizes; and then it is not for all lenses. sure I can shoot below 1/60 but it is going on the monitor or a 4x6. yrs ago I took a shot in a basement of an airplane that someone was building there and 1/4sec and wideopen was the only way of getting the shot. I wanted something to show the scene. but 4x6 was the only thing you could do with it..
Imo, far to many people are talking of handholding to 1/10 or 1/4sec or something. the only problem is lets see a blowup to 20x30, THEN we will talk about sharpness. I can put my camera in my hand and hold it open on bulb for an hour and get all kinds of bragging rights. but what is the picture going to look like. it will be a mess..
I have already read several articles by pros who simply state that the lower amount of fstops in an sr/vr/is is the more practical and feasable operating limit. that when some camera maker says 2-4 stops with sr, you should be using no more than the lower number, that is 2 stops if critical sharpness(the ability to massively enlarge and not be concerned about how it will look due sharpness) is to be maintaned..
In any event, I do not go below 1/60 without a tripod. and in some uses it is a tripod period. such as with my bigma, I am simply not willing to settle for shots that later limit me as to their enlargement ability...
And don't forget that you can get several more stops with a stabilised lens or sensor than you can unstabilised. I've managed sharp (-ish - certainly enough for 4x6 prints) exposures of one second shooting with my Sony A100 and 17-70 lens at around 24mm:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
I gather you replied but never read my 4th paragraph..
Also I looked at your foliage shot; it is blurred. as stated my criteria for sharpness is the ability to enlarge to 16x20 and 20x30. no way would your foliage shot be able to blown up to a 20x30, the bluriness would be prety obvious and unacceptable...
Wijnands wrote:.
If you're fit, strong and have some experience shooting rifles thenyou should be able to go below 1/30 without much problems.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/.
If you shoot rifles, you might want to try a Bushhawk shoulder stock like in my signature photo. I have more of a description of it here http://forums.dpreview.com/...33&message=22742144&q=bushhawk&qf=mJoel Orlinsky.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Basically, the focal length rule will apply, but don't toss out blurry photos. you can often times secure great prints from them depending on the size..
Here are a copy 100% crops from images that are OOF and print just fine at standard sizes..
Http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/52204719http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/52204720.
At 4x6 you can't tell at all that they are OOF..
Oddish wrote:.
I read in some article that you shouldn't go below 1/30 shutterspeed if you don't have any anti-shake system or a tripod. Is thisreally true? I tried some shots with 1/4 shutter speed and Icouldn't really see much blurring. Am I fooling myself here?.
What's the slowest shutter speed you guys would recommend if Idon't have any assistance from any anti-shake or a tripod, toprevent blurring caused by shaking hands?.
TimColumbus, Ohiohttp://www.pbase.com/pdqgp..
Well, it all depends on you, the camera and the lens..
The best I every did was 2 seconds but it gets worse as you get older..
The camera shape helps too. These days they seem designed to be displayed and not to be held, which is probably why IS came in (to counteract the silly design). Some cameras are "T" shaped and can be held with both hands and some are not and can't..
And some have mirrors to bang about and spoil things..
Also the position of the shutter button plays a part; how you push it and - like pistol shooting - your breathing comes into it. So hold the camera with both hands, squeeze the shutter button gently and take on the pause between breathing in and out..
Lastly and blindingly obvious, the longer the focal length the faster the slowest speed becomes..
There's a brilliant piece of free software called EXIF Image Viewer out there*. It will list your pictures by almost any parameter and so you can sort them by shutter speed and view them. That will soon give you the answer to the question/problem..
Regards, David.
* http://home.pacbell.net/michal_k/..