# What would you say is your slowest hand held shutter speed?



## wgp1987 (Jan 4, 2010)

* I meant to put HAND HELD


I recently have been exploring manual shooting and have gotten better at doing so. I would say standing straight up with only my arms supporting the camera i get the sharpest images at 1/20th. I can go a little slower like 1/10 but that doesn't give me that same sharpness i enjoy. I even tried to pull a trick out of the COD book and hold my breath, i guess it helps? What about you?


----------



## Pugs (Jan 4, 2010)

Depends on the how heavy/long/focal length of the lens.  But I RARELY can get below 1/60th without noticeable camera shake.  Once upon a LONG time ago, I had rock steady hands and probably could have done considerably better, but those days are way behind me now.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jan 4, 2010)

As Pugs says, it depends on the focal length you're using at the time, but depending on what you are doing, you can get away with less than the ideal (e.g. 50mm = 1/60s, 100mm - 125s, 200mm = 1/200s). With the various IR systems around, you can get away with murder at times - I've got a shot taken at 1/8s handheld at a focal length of around 40mm that looks fine. It was done with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS though.


----------



## itznfb (Jan 4, 2010)

I would say 1/30 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 @200mm. I can get a few sharp shots down to 1/10 but not consistently by any means.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 4, 2010)

There are plenty of factors at work here.

As mentioned, the focal length of the lens plays a big part.  The 'rule of thumb' for 35mm film cameras is that you want your shutter speed to be at least one over your focal length.  So for a 50mm lens, you want at least 1/50.  For a 100mm lens, you want 1/100 etc.  

I can usually go slower than that with good technique.  
For example; your posture.  Stand with your feet at least shoulder width apart and hold the camera with your arms tucked into your body.  Better yet; sit, kneel or lean against something solid.  
There are also breathing and timing techniques, the same as you might use while shooting a gun, rifle etc.  

And of course, some cameras/lenses have stabilization which really helps.


----------



## brianT (Jan 4, 2010)

As stated the focal length is important.  For me, it also matters which lens I'm using.  The large heavy lenses are more difficult to keep steady compared to a small lightweight 50mm prime.  Also depends if the lens has VR.  Also depends on the weather conditions.  If it's windy it's more difficult to keep things steady.  If it's cold and my hands are cold more camera shake is probable.

In the perfect scenario (no wind, warm weather, wider focal length) I can shoot 1/20th and get everything sharp.  Doesn't work everytime though.  If the light condition is dim I will try to shoot at low shutter speed and keep the ISO low.


----------



## HikinMike (Jan 4, 2010)

I've done a few @ 1/50 with my 300mm and 1.4x. I was trying to find one in my archives, but I can't find it.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 4, 2010)

With my 70-200 I can usually hand hold 1/30th with fairly consistent results. I hand held my 18-55 kit lens for 4 seconds once with near perfect sharpness though


----------



## DScience (Jan 4, 2010)

It depends on how much I've smoked.


----------



## DScience (Jan 4, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> With my 70-200 I can usually hand hold 1/30th with fairly consistent results. I hand held my 18-55 kit lens for 4 seconds once with near perfect sharpness though



Proof? Lol


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 4, 2010)

Coming up


----------



## TokZik (Jan 4, 2010)

4 sec here


----------



## DScience (Jan 4, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Coming up




WOW! Were you on like 3 valium or what? lol


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 4, 2010)




----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2010)

I did a test once to see how long I could hand hold before I started to see camera shake.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I was able to go for at least a few seconds...  I might have to try to dig those shots up...  Too bad you can't search by exposure time in LR, lol.

That was in ideal conditions, with good technique though.  In the real world, I can usually go down to at least 1/50th before I even have to think about it.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 4, 2010)

How do we know you weren't using a tripod or something?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2010)

wgp1987 said:


> * I meant to put HAND HELD
> 
> 
> I recently have been exploring manual shooting and have gotten better at doing so. I would say standing straight up with only my arms supporting the camera i get the sharpest images at 1/20th. I can go a little slower like 1/10 but that doesn't give me that same sharpness i enjoy. I even tried to pull a trick out of the COD book and hold my breath, i guess it helps? What about you?



It all depends what focal length you are using


----------



## grafxman (Jan 4, 2010)

Some of the photos in the Huguenot Park set at my flickr site were hand held at 1000mm. That's a 150-500mm stabilized Sigma with a doubler. Since I got that lens I haven't used any type of support at all. I used to carry a monopod with me but now it stays in the trunk.


----------



## icassell (Jan 4, 2010)

I agree with the comments above. I can handhold my 10-20 at very slow shutter speeds, but not my 100-300mm f/4.  In fact, I thought I was doing well with sharp images handheld with the large lens and then did a comparison for myself tripod vs. no tripod of the same subject.  The camera shake, although minimal, became clearly apparent on the no-tripod images when they were compared to the ones done on the pod.


----------



## wgp1987 (Jan 5, 2010)

I apologize for not elaborating. The longest lens i have right now is my 24-105 and i just walk around with the shutter set to 1/20 and iso 100, then i compensate the aperture if i am in good light. Otherwise i keep the aperture at the lowest f stop and compensate my iso. I am soon getting a flash so my low light photos don't have to be above iso 400!

That "4sec" photo is impressive. lol.


----------



## boogschd (Jan 5, 2010)

1/10" to 1/8" 

but thats with a kit lens so.. mEH


----------



## Garbz (Jan 5, 2010)

With no VR it's 1/(35mm equivalent focal length) usually divided by 2 or 3 for me because I have rather steady hands.

Camera shake is directly proportional to focal length so all those people who are providing time numbers without any focal length info are providing useless information.


----------



## Jon0807 (Jan 5, 2010)

Photo of the in-laws taken with a 28-135 IS lens, focal length 28mm, tv 1/8.  I believe I was sitting down and had my elbows against my stomach. Along with the IS I had some good stability.  I think I've gone down to 1 second with the same lens at around 80mm with ok results but that's with IS.  I'll see if I can find a photo of that.


----------



## FrankLamont (Jan 5, 2010)

At 28mm, 1/15 produces a 75% accuracy rate. Roughly, of course, I'm not a statistical machine, but that's about it.


----------



## wgp1987 (Jan 5, 2010)

lol this was interesting


----------



## Psycho (Feb 1, 2010)

Oh pshaw, 4 seconds is nothing!
I'm so steady, I shoot my star trail shots hand held in bulb mode. No need for expensive remotes and tripods. I get tired after a couple of hours though.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 1, 2010)

I go by what others have posted, that you take your focal length and divide it by 100 for full frame cameras.  So for a 50mm you need at least 1/50th.  But if you have a crop sensor camera (APS-C) you'll need to multiply your focal length by 1.6 to get your effective focal length and then divide by 100.  So a 50mm lens would give you a 1/80 sec.  I've hand held shots well under the above recommendation, but I like to avoid that situation.  All things being equal, I'd rather have a little more noise than a potentially soft looking shot.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 1, 2010)

You can also shoot in bursts of three, you can typically get one that's fairly sharp.

1/10 @ around 50mm is about it for me.

Using the burst method I actually got a shot of a little girl and her mother from accross a large room that you could see the light fixtures in their eyes clearly.. at 400mm with a D200.  Elbows braced on a table of course but still..


----------



## Montana (Feb 1, 2010)

I haven't ever purposely tried it, but I have handheld my 600 f/4 with IS on at 1/40 with great results.


----------



## icassell (Feb 1, 2010)

Montana said:


> I haven't ever purposely tried it, but I have handheld my 600 f/4 with IS on at 1/40 with great results.



I can't believe you could do that.  Please send me your 600 f/4 so I can try it for myself


----------



## Andrew Boyd (Feb 1, 2010)

I have a piece on my blog about how to hand hold at slower shutter speeds over at The Discerning Photographer. With practice, you can dramatically improve your results.

Andrew
The Discerning Photographer


----------



## TheDirtStreet (Feb 2, 2010)

I've been working on my night photography and I found this to be really helpful. Although I've found that I get inconsistent results hand held under 1/40. I've had some pretty good ones at much lower but nothing much more consistent.


----------



## craig (Feb 2, 2010)

I hit 1/15th on more then one occasion. Mostly because I got creative and rested my arms on a wall or whatever. I think 1/30th is possible by all photographers. Also keep in mind that sharp focus is overrated.

Love & Bass


----------



## kkamin (Feb 3, 2010)

craig said:


> I hit 1/15th on more then one occasion. Mostly because I got creative and rested my arms on a wall or whatever. I think 1/30th is possible by all photographers. Also keep in mind that sharp focus is overrated.
> 
> Love & Bass



Like others have mentioned, your lens' focal length determines the degree of steadiness.  Most people could hand hold a 15mm lens at 1/15th of a second; it's not a big deal.  But hand holding a 400mm at 1/15th of a second will give you a different result.  Imagine holding a pair of high powered binoculars and how the tiniest movement by the holder created dramatic movement through the lens.

I don't think sharp focus is overrated imo.  Unless you are going for a blurred result, I think most people prefer to start with as "clean" image as possible and apply softening effects in PS or the darkroom.  I've had many images ruined because of unwanted softness.  You can only sharpen images so much in PS before the edge contrast and haloing makes the image unnatural.  Just my opinion.


----------



## astrostu (Feb 3, 2010)

With a wide-angle lens, somewhere around 35 mm, I've gotten down to 1/15-sec with acceptable results.  Nothing slower.


----------

