tlitody
Well-known
an extract from "The Camera" - Ansel Adams (page 116(ish) under heading shutter speed).
There seems to be a gulf between what people think.
But I guess it really comes down to what is sharp enough to get the message across and not what is technically sharpest possible. There is a disconnect between the two and mostly sharp enough is good enough(for most us).
Now you can argue that it may not have been a rangefinder he was using but it doesn't say one way or another, but what it does say is that with a normal focal length lens which is roughly 1/diagonal of film format, and a distant subject, you need 1/250 for sharpness. The distance is important too. The critcal thing is the distance across the AOV in any direction that the subject moves. At distance the movement of a branch tip will be very small. I venture to say a lot smaller than a close subject.Tests I conducted some years ago, photographing distant leafless trees against the sky, indicated that, using a normal lens with a hand-held camera, the slowest shutter that ensured maximum sharpness was 1/250 second. I found that even with firm body support image sharpness was noticeably degraded at 1/125 second, a speed that many photographers consider safe for hand-holding a camera with normal lens. With a lens of longer than normal focal length, even shorter exposure times will be required: 1/500 second with a 100mm lens and 1/1000 second with longer lenses, as a guide.
There seems to be a gulf between what people think.
But I guess it really comes down to what is sharp enough to get the message across and not what is technically sharpest possible. There is a disconnect between the two and mostly sharp enough is good enough(for most us).
Last edited: