Shooting images at @200mm; 1sec shutter speeds, No O.I.S, handheld

[SomeFormOFhuman]

After reading the Canon/Nikon forums and forums in Dpreview and other photography forums, I saw numerous threads about users shooting at low shutter speeds, like 1/4 sec, 1/10, and some even at 1/2 sec. And so on, they seem to contest each other of whoever has the gift of a rock-like hand. (Shouldn't we all look at photographic concepts and composition rather than the technicalities of Photography? )

Anyway but after reading, I found out they're using lenses equipped with I.S, and mostly all shot at 50mm or less. That shouldn't be a problem I guess...

Now with all that in mind, I decided to go gogo-gaga and I tried to do a little experiment today and be a little more extreme... I tried using my Sigma's 18-200mm attached to my EOS 400D (Rebel XTi) and tried shooting the furthest zoom at 200mm. Please note that:

1. This lens does not come with OIS, or neither did I use any tripod stand for test shots. Neither was the camera resting on a support or sitting on a foreign object.

2. Neither did I tried to relax or rest my elbows. I only did the simple tactic of holding my breath before I fire. (I tried using a little rifle training technique I learnt last time)

3. There are 3 images are shot at a shutter speed of 1 sec, and one of them at 0.8 sec. If you don't believe me, try saving the images; Right click, select properties, select the Summary Tab and click advanced. All the stats are there. All 3 Images are shot at 200mm. Only one of them is at 125mm but still around the same. All 4 images images are shot within the same day and hour.

4. Oh yeah, finally, I would like to say I didn't sharpen my images or use any Photoshop editing for my photos. They are what it is, and they will be what they originally are.

Click the thumbnail to enlarge for 100% crop original size


Click the thumbnail to enlarge for 100% crop original size

Anyway, don't expect art from these shots, they're just testing purposes only. I would suggest selecting the image of the fan, and try looking at the "National" word logo in the center for sharpness & clarity. Also I tired to find test subjects that portrays tons of detail and lines, like the school building above and the fan.

So ultimately in this whole thread, I was just wondering if there is anyone before me that took even sharper, crispier better shots at extremely low shutter speeds and at handheld level?

[SomeFormOFhuman]

Here's another shot that I took in school months back. I saw a nice loving stream and flow of water, and I decided to capture that kind of tranquility. I somehow cherished this image because I was carrying my school bag at the same time, (It wasn't a haversack kind ) It was really heavy and I was shaking all over. I can't place it on the floor as it was wet and it was moderately raining, and I still managed to get a clear shot for this. Oh yeah and I spent 5 mins there and my camera was soaked wet. But it still works.

Stats: Focal: 33mm, Shutter: 1/2 sec, No OIS, Handheld.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I've always pushed myself to be still and I'm okay at it, but as I've gotten older it's harder. I used to be reasonably steady and if I had a slide scanner I'd post a couple from inside the Canadian Parliament building in Ottawa that I did a decade ago. Now it's hit and miss with slower shutter speeds and I usually try to find something to brace against if the shutter is any slower than 1/30th. A rock, a streetlight post, or park bench when doing stuff like this now. But then, I've also never been shooting 200mm when doing this.

I'm very lazy when it comes to carrying equipment with me so any tricks on holding steady are appreciated.

[MJPhilly]

Impressive! I've gotten better with practice over time, but in the end I'm too big and clumsy, and I drink too much caffeine.

I have the same lens, by the way.

[one very bored guy]

Very interesting. Yes, it's always a good idea to experiment.

I'll be honest though. Their lack of sharpness is exactly why doing this handheld is not recommended. Of cause, when you look at the thumbnails they look great, but then, you may as well a 0.1MP camera ;O)

I think a better way to test would be to do the handheld shot, then mount the camera on a tripod, use mirror lockup (if DSLR) and shoot with a remote shutter or self timer. Then compare side by side.

I personally hate blur. It drives me mad. I guess that's why I am a tripod shooter. I like to take my tripod out even in the day as it simply gives the best shots for my style of photography, and I get the opportunity to use a variety of filters like ND or GND. My customers also would not accept anything that isn't tack sharp.

Then again, for many types of artistic photography, blur isn't a problem. Art is what the artist wants it to be, so there is still plenty of scope for such photos hand held like above.

Keep up the experimenting, it can only reap rewards.

[Upward]

That's pretty impressive. You know about the 1/f guidline, right? The shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length (so, 1/200 sec at 200mm) to guarantee a sharp handheld picture. So you're violating that by a pretty extreme margin. I have managed to shoot clearly down to 1/30 sec with a 50mm lens (check out my San Diego night thread for examples), but 1 second at 200mm is pretty amazing. The pictures are only sharp in the very small size, but I'd actually expect blur bad enough to be visible even there.

[SomeFormOFhuman]

Hahaha Yeah thanks for the comments... I hands got pretty painful after all that shooting...

But did you guys clicked the the thumbnail for full original size??? You all seem to be commenting on the image quality of the thumbnail alone.

Click Thumbnail to view orignal 100% crop



Gee, I better highlight that a little. Thanks again! But I was wondering if any of you done that kind of shooting before? I would like to see it.

[hackunion]

I don't own a digital camera and I'm unfamiliar with the term OIS. Does that refer to the equivalent of film speed?
Depending on film speed and lens, I can sometimes take a clear photo at 1/2 second although the depth of field is usually at the narrowest setting (1.8). My friend and I took photographs of each other at night with my camera, without a tripod. The film speed was either 64 or 100 (slide film), the lens was probably 50mm. I think mine turned out better even though it was a cold night, and she had a 1/4 second advantage!


Mine, 1/2 sec.


Hers, 1/4 sec.


Together, 1/2 sec.

[Aleks]

I thought slow shutter speed was to make things that are moving look blurry and non moving objects look clear. Personally I don't like using slow shutter speed that way I can move and make the picture look clear.

[hackunion]

Originally Posted by Aleks0o01

I thought slow shutter speed was to make things that are moving look blurry and non moving objects look clear.

No, unless you want that particular kind of image

[SomeFormOFhuman]

Originally Posted by hackunion

I don't own a digital camera and I'm unfamiliar with the term OIS. Does that refer to the equivalent of film speed?
Depending on film speed and lens, I can sometimes take a clear photo at 1/2 second although the depth of field is usually at the narrowest setting (1.8). My friend and I took photographs of each other at night with my camera, without a tripod. The film speed was either 64 or 100 (slide film), the lens was probably 50mm. I think mine turned out better even though it was a cold night, and she had a 1/4 second advantage!

OIS simply means the Optical Image Stablizer. It is a system being implemented into the structure of the lens to help reduce bluring of images due to shaky hands. It's a common issue for lenses with long zoom ranges, and yes, the OIS is useful for long zoom range lenses, where the slightest movement or tilt can make your images look blurred, especially when in low lighting conditions. It has nothing to do with film or shutter speed. It's a digital camera stuff to put it simply.

Take a look at this:
http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/optis.html

50mm lens with 1/4 shutter or 1/2 shutter is quite easy to shoot crisp images for me. I'm talking about a 200mm zoom range with a 1 sec shutter speed. So I was wondering if anyone had ever came across that before.

Originally Posted by Aleks0o01

I thought slow shutter speed was to make things that are moving look blurry and non moving objects look clear. Personally I don't like using slow shutter speed that way I can move and make the picture look clear.

Yes that is true. It's called Panning. Usually this technique is great for sports. However in this experiment, it was a test of hands to see if how much I can handle with sharpness with a low shutter and long zoom, handheld.