shutter speed

[gooomz]

seems at (2) twice the focal length I am getting sharp images.

does anyone find that as shutter speed increases image does gets a touch sharper.

ex. landscape handheld shot with a 24mm at 1/60 is good but at 1/125 or better yet 1/250 sharper results.

is this true in general?

that is what I have found but wasn't sure if I just have a shaky hand.

 

[Kokoshawnuff]

Even at 1/1000th handheld you'll get better results with a sturdy tripod at 1/30th. 'Acceptable' results handheld are possible down to 1/4 of a second for some, but interms of 'camera shake' a sturdy tripod and head is the only thing that will really limit it.

I don't know if it will show right away, but try taking a few photos at 1/500th handheld, then put the camera on a tripod (use a shutter release or self timer) and take the same photos. If you have a Lightroom or something like that, look at both photos side by side and zoom in 200%--on at least one of those handheld photos you will see noticible camera shake when compared to the tripod version.

Ultimately, unless you're doing testing...it's best not to worry about it, but typically, for 'sharp' images, the higher the shutter speed the better.

 

[gooomz]

i know tripod is best, but is good in theory better to use extra light to stop down a stop or use that stop for increased shutter speed handheld.

ex. with the Leica 21 3.4 better to stop down to 5.6 or go from 1/125 to 1/250 shutter?

or is this all spitting hairs and pixel peeping?

thanks

 

[Vivek]

that is what I have found but wasn't sure if I just have a shaky hand.

Yes, it is very subjective. What is good for me will not apply to you at all. Use what works for you. Experiment and stick to the parameters that suit you.

 

[Godfrey]

Just remember the two basic rules. To first order of largest influence:

- aperture influences focus zone
- exposure time influences camera motion and subject motion

No amount of increase in focus zone will make a photo with recorded camera motion seem sharper.

G

 

[Kokoshawnuff]

i know tripod is best, but is good in theory better to use extra light to stop down a stop or use that stop for increased shutter speed handheld.

ex. with the Leica 21 3.4 better to stop down to 5.6 or go from 1/125 to 1/250 shutter?

or is this all spitting hairs and pixel peeping?

thanks

Well with the lens you mention there won't be much of a dof or iq difference between 3.4 and 5.6. But in general I think you find the maximum speed with each lens that gives you acceptable results...it might be 1/8th with a 21mm, 1/30th with a 50mm, and 1/125 with a 135mm. If the exposure of the scene is faster than those comfort numbers, then the essential thing is dof. If the exposure of the scene calls for speeds slower than your comfort zone, then dof will have to be decreased

Also, leica lenses have always been famous for being great performers at wider apertures, so opening the lens up a bit won't typically hurt the image quality it will just narrow your depth of field

 

[edwardkaraa]

I always try to shoot at a minimum speed of 1/250s, because I have jittery hands. Sometimes I get sharp photos at 1/15s but it takes a lot of concentration. I think as a general rule 2X the focal length is enough to cancel average hand shakiness.

 

[gooomz]

on a side topic, for sharp detailed landscapes in general is it good practice to leave the Monohcrom at base iso 320 or this again old school film mentality and subjective preference?

the MM is awesome at high iso but for the medium format look 320 is sweet.

do the majority of traditional landscape shooters stick to base iso even on the MM?

 

[gooomz]

is it a good idea to take successive shots handheld and maybe the 2nd or 3rd might be a touch sharper, or just use good form and try for 1 steady handheld?

new to landscapes.

thanks again.

 

[Godfrey]

re: goomz last two posts:

- it all depends what you're looking to achieve in your landscape photographs
- try it, experiment, see what works and what doesn't with your
own hands and eyes.

G