rangefinder realistic slowest hand held shutter speed?

rangefinder realistic slowest hand held shutter speed?

  • 1/60

    Votes: 28 7.2%

  • 1/30

    Votes: 115 29.5%

  • 1/15

    Votes: 134 34.4%

  • 1/8

    Votes: 80 20.5%

  • 1/4

    Votes: 22 5.6%

  • 1/2

    Votes: 8 2.1%

  • 1s

    Votes: 2 0.5%

  • > 1s ( are your subjects dead? )

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Total voters
    390
  • Poll closed .
With so many amazing claims about what I assume are reliable and repeatable shooting speeds this should be an Olympic sport. Can you picture it in your mind? A dimly lit arena, instead of jumps for horses there would be street lights, benches, bushes, and a cafe scene. Team GB's photographer would enter the ring and lurk in the shadows as actors carried out a prescribed routine, the photographer aiming for perfect 10/10 sharpness, and perhaps a good composition. Of course it would rely on strict drugs and equipment testing, no alcohol, no image stabilisation.

Steve
 
We'd first of all have to define usable. If you pixel-peep or want to exploit modern sensors, films and lenses to the maximum of their resolution in print or projection, even the old formula of 1/focal length will display significant motion blur on typical street subjects, and would visibly lose sharpness even on static subjects when handheld. I've found traces of jitter-induced blur even at 1/500 with a normal lens.

Postcard size print or web view does not need more than the old newsprint rule of thumb for 35mm (which was about 1/fl for rougher SLRs respectively 2/fl for rangefinders or smooth running, heavy SLRs like a F4) - but even back in my press days I avoided shooting that slow, as the number of pictures that were good enough for a full page spread (and hence long-term marketable by stock agencies) diminished at marginal exposure times.

My rule of thumb: If you believe to need marginal exposure times, consider a camera or lens with electronic image stabilization, or bring along a monopod.
 
What a beautiful bell curve! If there had been three more data points at the short end, it might have been a classic textbook example, out to three standard deviations!

Oh, yeah, it's 1/15 for me. Anything longer, and I will look around for some surface on which to steady the camera, like a table or cabinet.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
This thread is interesting, but could be deleted and made again:

Depending on the subject, the lens used, and where we can lean on or not, it goes from 1/2 to 1/125...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Yes. You can get clean shots at 1/2, 1/8, 1/15, and 1/30. Some of it depends if your arms are braced on something like a table. It also depends how much blurriness your willing to consider acceptable and what focal length you're using. 1/30th, however, is probably the slowest you want to shoot "safely" with a standard film rangefinder with a fixed 35 or 50mm focal length with an reasonable quantity of acceptable output. The slower you go, the greater the risk of unacceptable output to where 1/2 is a "suprised it came out" kinda thing...
 
Last edited:
I find 1/15 possible in certain situations, but 1/30 is most realistic. Attached image was taken at 1/30, shot at 1600 ISO (Fuji Superia 1600) wide open.
 

Attachments

  • jazz.jpg
    jazz.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 0
IMHO, you can't make a blanket statement about a minimum handheld shutter speed without taking focal length into consideration.

For a 50mm lens, I would say 1/30 would be the slowest handheld shutter speed, 1/15th for a 35mm, 28mm or 24mm lens - if you are very steady handed, that is. That is for 100% handheld with no support or bracing.

JMHO - it may be slower for some photographers, but that's the guidelines I use.
 
1/30, although sometimes I can get a good shot at 1/15. Same w/ an SLR, but their mirror slap usually means I need 1/60 or more, depending on the camera. That is aggravating, because I can hold an SLR steadier due to their weight and ergonomics.
 
Last weekend I had some shots with moving water, image-stabilized 70mm and sharp to the pixel at 1/10s. In the days of image stabilization the handholdability advantage of the rangefinder is pretty much zero.
 
I can consistently handhold, with no bracing or other support, a Leica M or an Olympus OM SLR down to 1/15 with a 50mm lens or shorter. Longer than 50, I don't do so well.
 
The OP's question is ridiculous, what's the focal length? You didn't state that so it's just a bunch of people arguing back and forth over nothing. You can probably do a second or half a second with 16mm lens, and perhaps 1/60 if you are good with a 135mm lens. So this thread should be deleted and started over.
 
for 35mm focal length, I can go to 1/8 if the subject is very still. The result is not very predictable, but sometimes is good.

Few people go that far just to test their hands' steadiness. By the time you decide to use 1/8, your diaphragm is most likely wide open, so shallow DOF (e.g. with my Notkon/35/1.2), as well as the challenge of focusing in less than perfect lighting are also risk factors.
 
1/60 for me...

1/60 for me...

Did mostly digital during the last years with a 5d; I took the habit of not holding the camera steady, shoot at 1/200th and use ISO 1600-3200 if needed.
Now I shoot more analog so I have to relearn worrying about holding the camera steady...
 
Last edited:
I have a fairly steady hand, so I limit myself to 1/20 for anything handheld. Maybe 1/15 for wide-angle shots, but only if necessary.

I like my photos sharp :)
 
tojeem said:
I have a fairly steady hand, so I limit myself to 1/20 for anything handheld. Maybe 1/15 for wide-angle shots, but only if necessary.

I like my photos sharp :)
Click to expand...

mary-mora_8-15-11_1.jpg


1/15 with a 50mm lens. Looks sharp to me :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom