Shutter Speed?


Status
Not open for further replies.

arikevin

New Member
Oct 21, 2003
656
0
0
34
Teck Whye Lane
arikevin.fotopic.net
#1
at which shutter speed that you cannot shoot handheld? is it below 1/125? :dunno:

some shots that I took at 1/80 got blurred. Does it got to do with ISO speed? :dunno:
 

OzOn3

New Member
Jul 12, 2003
1,050
0
0
32
Singapore
www.nig3l.com
#2
Well, actually it all depends on individuals.. For me, i can go hand held until about 1/50.. ISO affects the shutter speed because it is more "sensitive to light". This means that in a particular situation, your ISO speed and shutter speed, for example, is ISO 200, 1/10, and if you increase your ISO to 400, you can use a shutter speed of 1/30, i think.. Not very sure about the ISO/Shutter steps.. Maybe someone can correct me on that.. But that's the concept :D
 

HelmetBox

New Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,324
0
0
#3
depends on how much zoom.......
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#4
arikevin said:
at which shutter speed that you cannot shoot handheld? is it below 1/125? :dunno:

some shots that I took at 1/80 got blurred. Does it got to do with ISO speed? :dunno:
Two things that can cause blur; hand-shake and subject motion. A fast shutter speed can help reduce both.

The general rule of thumb to eliminate hand-shake is 1/focal length. That is, if you are zoomed to 300mm, you should be at least 1/300s. This is actually quite conservative (I feel), and I can go a little slower than that. Techniques to reduce hand-shake can be learnt.

The second issue is subject motion. If you are shooting posed portraits or still life, no problem. If you are shooting sports or fast moving babies ;) , your shutter speed needs to be bumped up to freeze motion.

For the same available light, a higher ISO allows you to shoot at a faster shutter speed to maintain the same 'exposure', at the expense of, generally, image noise or grain (for film). That is 1/100 shutter@ISO100 gives the same 'exposure' as 1/200@ISO200.

Cheers
 

SzennyBoy

New Member
Mar 3, 2002
690
0
0
46
London, UK
www.zen76903.zen.co.uk
#5
General rule of thumb for slowest shutter speed at 1/focal-length. So for a 50mm lens, it should be around 1/50th or down to 1/40th, depending on you ability to hold the camera steady. On tele-lenses, this becomes more critical. I generally would not shoot slower than 1/125th with my 105mm to get crisp pictures. Many people was say that they can shoot at slower shutter speeds but why give youself that extra pressure?
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,548
0
0
56
Perth Australia
#6
arikevin said:
at which shutter speed that you cannot shoot handheld? is it below 1/125? :dunno:

some shots that I took at 1/80 got blurred. Does it got to do with ISO speed? :dunno:
The general rule for most folks is 1 / lens focal length being the safest slow speed to shoot at. eg: 400mm lens 1/400th, 35mm lens 1/30th etc.

In time and with the correct camera holding technique (For an SLR without grip it's base of camera held cradled in left hand, right hand in front holding lens, arms locked in to your sides) and for a camera with grip hold grip in right hand, cradle under camera body and around lens with left hand or hold lens from underneath with elbow locked in to side of chest if it's a longer lens.

As well there's correct breathing techniques (always shoot when your lungs are empty) you'll find you can go a lot lower than the 1 / focal length guideline.

Ian
 

Jun 27, 2002
3,802
0
0
here
www.9frames.com
#8
:bsmilie:
arikevin said:
The shot that I took was at 1/80 with external flash. Could this mean the weight caused the camera to shake thus blurred image?
dunno about you but weight stablized my shots more than shake up to a certain degree.
 

arikevin

New Member
Oct 21, 2003
656
0
0
34
Teck Whye Lane
arikevin.fotopic.net
#9
Ian said:
The general rule for most folks is 1 / lens focal length being the safest slow speed to shoot at. eg: 400mm lens 1/400th, 35mm lens 1/30th etc.

In time and with the correct camera holding technique (For an SLR without grip it's base of camera held cradled in left hand, right hand in front holding lens, arms locked in to your sides) and for a camera with grip hold grip in right hand, cradle under camera body and around lens with left hand or hold lens from underneath with elbow locked in to side of chest if it's a longer lens.

As well there's correct breathing techniques (always shoot when your lungs are empty) you'll find you can go a lot lower than the 1 / focal length guideline.

Ian
Hmm, okay, but my lens is 38-190mm. .


This is the shot that I took at f/2.2 1/80sec ISO200 with external flash (bounced)

 

Cash

Deregistered
Jan 10, 2004
200
0
0
#10
The shutter speed you should use is the one where you don't get blur images when not intended. At what speed that might be? WHo knows?

SOme can hold at 1/8th and at 8x10 is still sharp. Some can't even at 1/125th.
 

FOOXX

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
414
0
0
Visit site
#11
OzOn3 said:
Well, actually it all depends on individuals.. For me, i can go hand held until about 1/50.. ISO affects the shutter speed because it is more "sensitive to light". This means that in a particular situation, your ISO speed and shutter speed, for example, is ISO 200, 1/10, and if you increase your ISO to 400, you can use a shutter speed of 1/30, i think.. Not very sure about the ISO/Shutter steps.. Maybe someone can correct me on that.. But that's the concept :D
azzuming u r uzing the same aperture n the lighting iz the same, when u double ur ISO the shutter speed will become 2 timez fazter. :)

:D
 

FOOXX

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
414
0
0
Visit site
#14
arikevin said:
aperture doesn't affect the blur images right?
hmmm ..... me am trying to make a fair comparizion so me am azzuming u r uzing the same aperture for both cazez.

if u chooze to uze a smaller aperture after u double the ISO, the shutter speed may be even slower than the initial shutter speed. :)

:D
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,548
0
0
56
Perth Australia
#15
arikevin said:
Hmm, okay, but my lens is 38-190mm. .


This is the shot that I took at f/2.2 1/80sec ISO200 with external flash (bounced)
In this case after a quick look at the shot you posted it's a case of the depth of focus being insufficient rather than a camera holding problem. Increase the aperture by a couple of stops, use a faster film and all should be fine.

With a 38-190 lens I'd opt for a comprimise hand holding speed based on the weight of the lens and some testing. Probably around 1/60th for an average photographer would be around the right figure for shorter focal lengths and 1/200th or 1/250th for the 190mm end.
 

arikevin

New Member
Oct 21, 2003
656
0
0
34
Teck Whye Lane
arikevin.fotopic.net
#16
Ian said:
In this case after a quick look at the shot you posted it's a case of the depth of focus being insufficient rather than a camera holding problem. Increase the aperture by a couple of stops, use a faster film and all should be fine.

With a 38-190 lens I'd opt for a comprimise hand holding speed based on the weight of the lens and some testing. Probably around 1/60th for an average photographer would be around the right figure for shorter focal lengths and 1/200th or 1/250th for the 190mm end.
Ian, my camera is not dSLR.

Btw, does aperture affects the distance? or does the distance affects the aperture setting? :dunno:

Well, I thought so initially but I believe your theory. Quite true. However, there is another photo that I want to show you about my question in the first place.

This photo 1/40sec, f/2.4 ISO 100

 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#17
arikevin, this shot looks out of focus to me.
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#19
arikevin said:
Ian, my camera is not dSLR.

Btw, does aperture affects the distance? or does the distance affects the aperture setting? :dunno:

Well, I thought so initially but I believe your theory. Quite true. However, there is another photo that I want to show you about my question in the first place.

This photo 1/40sec, f/2.4 ISO 100

Ari,
using large apertures decreases the 'depth of field' (DOF) of the picture. That is, parts of the picture that are closer or further than the point of focus will be very 'out-of-focus' (OOF). That could well be the case for the first picture you posted. Just looking casually, it appears that the little girl's face and ears are quite in focus, whilst the milk carton and the man's ear, which are nearer to the cam, are OOF. In order to increase DOF, so that more of the picture is in focus, you need to decrease the aperture size (stop-down). Generally f/8 onwards will give sufficiently decent DOF that most of the picture will be in acceptable focus. However, in low-light shooting, you may not have that option. So yes, aperture does cause blurriness.

The second pic is possibly hand-shake. What focal length are you shooting, 1/40 may not be fast enough.

Regards,
 

arikevin

New Member
Oct 21, 2003
656
0
0
34
Teck Whye Lane
arikevin.fotopic.net
#20
dkw said:
Ari,
using large apertures decreases the 'depth of field' (DOF) of the picture. That is, parts of the picture that are closer or further than the point of focus will be very 'out-of-focus' (OOF). That could well be the case for the first picture you posted. Just looking casually, it appears that the little girl's face and ears are quite in focus, whilst the milk carton and the man's ear, which are nearer to the cam, are OOF. In order to increase DOF, so that more of the picture is in focus, you need to decrease the aperture size (stop-down). Generally f/8 onwards will give sufficiently decent DOF that most of the picture will be in acceptable focus. However, in low-light shooting, you may not have that option. So yes, aperture does cause blurriness.

The second pic is possibly hand-shake. What focal length are you shooting, 1/40 may not be fast enough.

Regards,
Thanks for the explanation.

On the first picture that I posted, I used P mode. That explains the OOF :sweat:

For the second picture, its focal length is 48mm. I don't understand the focal length in the EXIF file. I thought I zoomed until the end (190mm) or at least somewhere there but it appears 48mm. :dunno:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom