Lets have a discussion of camera shake

sjprg · #1 12-05-2007, 08:31 PM

From the old film days the standard shutter speed was 1/fl which seemed to work out fine. In these days of digital it appears that the response time of the sensor is much faster than film and it takes a much faster shutter speed to stop the camera shake. A lot of my images which appear soft, when examined with FocusMagic turn out to be motion blur rather then focusing. An example today I shot some test images at 300mm @ 1/1200 and they showed up soft. Doing the same shots on a tripod with mirror lockup solved the problem. I guess the question is "How fast do we have to run the shutter speed to eiliminate camera shake, and is it even possible given the response speed of the dslr sensors?" Are we going to have to go to all "IS" lenses? Normaly I always shoot on at least a monopod which stops the high frequency shake but still leaves the low frequency motion.
So does anyone have any ideas? Comments?

michaelnotar · #2 12-05-2007, 11:36 PM

i use that rule too, but always try to stay as still as possible. the slowest i ever go is 1/30th with a 16mm lens on my 1d2. usually i keep it at 1/60th in that case, but i may stray down a one or two 3rds Tv.

cant remember when i HH a 300, its a 2.8 so keep it on wimberley head and tripod. i try to keep it at 1/125+ with the 300 or 1/250t with my 600, and thats on a tripod.

i recently HH a 200mm at 1/400th and it was good. you might have a focus issue or something...

AndrewCassino · #3 12-05-2007, 11:51 PM

Don't forget we can now simply dial up the ISO a bit to allow for an increased shutter speed. With the latest DSLRs there is a negligible penalty associated with that! I find an extra half-stop faster shutter speed is about what I need over the old 1/FL rule of thumb. Still, I have not hesitated to equip myself with IS lenses since they afford me the luxury of leaving the tripod in the car 90% of the time. Also I love the way they stabilize the viewfinder image!

Martin_Doudoroff · #4 12-06-2007, 12:20 AM

Without IS, I'm finding that getting a shutter speed that is at least 1/4x the focal length is a place of relative safety. (e.g., with a 50mm lens, 1/200th of a second is pretty fail safe) With IS, I find I can often get away with some outrageously long hand-held exposures on a long lens (e.g., 1/30th at 200mm). SOME of the time.

Short of an earthquake or seizure, I'm a little amazed to hear that 300mm @ 1/1200 can yield a soft shot due strictly to form of hand shake. On the other hand, there are all these resonance problems with tripods—such as Lloyd Chambers has written about—so they aren't always a guarantee. (If I have gone to the trouble to erect a tripod, I tend to drastically overshoot my subject to minimize the risk I will have to go do it over again. Seldom a problem, of course.) Anything is possible, right?

I'm also finding that the clarity and resolution of these sensors is making critical focus a more demanding problem, and that autofocus frequently lets me down: I think I'm going to be in focus but I'm not quite. Statistically, I'm probably experiencing more critical focus problems than shake problems, but most of my shots are with IS lenses, and most of my lenses are fast (f/2.8 or better).

Since moving up to a 5D, I find myself frequently shooting with confidence at ISO 800 or even ISO 1250, just so I can stop down. A little more depth of field seems to be my best weapon against my critical focus woes.

sjprg · #5 12-06-2007, 03:19 AM

One of the nice things about FocusMagic is that it lets you analyse the problem. I have resolved that my problem is camera shake mainly. Looks like I will have to spring for some IS lenses. I do shoot at 800 and also 1600 in an effort to minimise shake even with my monopod. Must be getting old.
Recover Detail and Sharpen Your Blurred Photos

Great tool for $45.00

ChrisPerry · #6 12-06-2007, 03:52 AM

Interesting.
My first SLR was a rebel and I use a light and cheap sigma 70-300 zoom. To get sharp shots I needed 2X the focal length. Then I got a tamron 70-200 2.8 - some 3 or so pounds of lens. I found I could hold at 1/100 most of the time, and 1/250 all the time with no issues. Discussions as to why this was so concluded the heavier lens either meant I held it differently (more securely, locked my back, etc) or the inertia was such that 1/100 was between heartbeats or breaths or the like.

I now have a 40D and use either 70-200 2.8 IS canon (1/13 is possible but not reliable (50% maybe) but 1/40 seems good 90% of the time). The 17-55 2.8 IS is good to 1/5 90% of the time and 1/15 100% of the time (at 50mm).

Some have suggested (in other forums) that one needs to take the crop factor into account - so a 200 lens needs to be at 1/320 or better 'cause the crop factor equivalent of 320mm.

As of late I've had more soft images that I'm attributing to the season of the year - it's getting dark out there! I thought it was me but at one wedding my second shooter and assistant were having troubles too - normally none of us do. It was a darker than normal church due to the season of the year and time of day (no daylight) and I think we all just pushed it to the limit of our gear (1/13 at ISO3200 and 2.8 is about all my 40D/70-200 can do!)

Rippanics · #7 12-06-2007, 06:21 AM

my 1st photo instructors pounded the importance of a tripod no matter what, no excuses.....jezzz that was in 1965.......