raid
Dad Photographer
1/15 is a good min speed.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Depends on the camera. 1/15 sounds about right with most of them; but with my Pentax 645N I usually figure anything at or faster than 1/10s with the 75mm f/2.8 is fair game.
Fawley
Well-known
This is where fixed lens, leaf shutter RF's, really shine. I don't think twice about hand holding at 1/8. For focal plane shutters also go down to 1/8 if necessary and then a second one at 1/15. I make 1/15 my absolute minimum for soft shutter SLR's like my Nikon F and Minolta XK. And for the shutters that go clunk like a Minolta SRT 101, I go by the old focal length of the lense rule.
mackigator
Well-known
I call friendly bs on a lot of these answers. The question was what is the safest speed for a hand held 50mm - not what you have sometimes gotten away with, or what speed you can shoot while bracing, or what speed you can shoot at a shorter focal length.
I have seen lots of shots (including my own) from slower speeds that look ok on the web or as small prints. But zoom in or print big and those 1/15th shots are not really sharp coming from the 50mm length. The closer you can be to 1/60th (or faster), the happier you'll be with the results.
But ok, I'll go 1/30th and claim some kind of sharpness.
I'm also curious about handheld ways to get the best possible chance at a usable shot. Squeeze it off, hold breath, elbows tucked in, stance that relies on my skeleton and not my muscles. What else?
I have seen lots of shots (including my own) from slower speeds that look ok on the web or as small prints. But zoom in or print big and those 1/15th shots are not really sharp coming from the 50mm length. The closer you can be to 1/60th (or faster), the happier you'll be with the results.
But ok, I'll go 1/30th and claim some kind of sharpness.
I'm also curious about handheld ways to get the best possible chance at a usable shot. Squeeze it off, hold breath, elbows tucked in, stance that relies on my skeleton and not my muscles. What else?
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
1/10 is my limit with a rangefinder. With an SLR, it's 1/15.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Most important observation of this thread.
If it's sitting still, may as well use a tripod if you have one handy (i know tripods are a bit anti-RF philosophy) But yeah, subject motion is more often, for me at least, the issue with slower shutter speeds than how long of an exposure I can get away with that still looks 'acceptably' sharp.
Richard G
Veteran
A 1/2 second worked well for me once with immobile subjects and me seated with my head against a rest. I regularly go for 1/4 or 1/8 and totally comfortable at 1/15s. The M2 is much better than the M6. Because of the M6's meter, the first part of the shutter button travel is to activate that, so the button doesn't trip the shutter until way down in its travel. Maybe if I only had this camera I would improve, but the M2 shutter fires half way down the travel, and that is much better. With the M2, and non-metered Ms (My M4 and M4-2 were the same), you can squeeze the shutter button without reaching the bottom of the button's travel, and that is very important for the very slow shots like 1/4 and 1/2. Using the old leather half case improves the hand held slow shot too, but I never use it now. If I was going to a nightclub or other concert I think I would take it along. I agree with the Leitz table-top tripod as a chest pod, but it's pretty cramped with the small ball head which is all I have.
gliderbee
Well-known
Do a conscious effort to really relax all muscles (including a tight ass).
If the OP wants some exercise: no push-ups; go pistolshooting; airpistols on 10m in particular (e.g. Steyer LP10) are great for learning to relax and get a steady hand.
xxloverxx
Shoot.
Down to 1/10th if I brace myself, legs apart and slightly bent, take a few deep breaths, exhale, wait ~2 seconds and gently squeeze the shutter.
So a bit of my martial arts education (stance, adapted), yoga (breathing) and laziness (resting my elbows) combined
So a bit of my martial arts education (stance, adapted), yoga (breathing) and laziness (resting my elbows) combined
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
1/15-1/8 for me as well.
the 50mm on my mamiya 6 is a different thing though, I've managed 1 full second handheld with very acceptable results!
the 50mm on my mamiya 6 is a different thing though, I've managed 1 full second handheld with very acceptable results!
Turtle
Veteran
This is a subject that is always tinged by the desire of some to exaggerate their prowess and others understate their low standards. It seems to be 'the thing to do to show you are a real RF street shooter.' This is not directed against those in this thread, but against what I feel is a subject often distorted by tall tales or at least a lack of objective truth telling. Did I tell you how big that fish was?
While you can hand hold at very low speeds, some or more of the following usually apply:
You can't do it every time, so it is not reliable. I like reliable when special things unfold in front of my camera.
The results are invariably less sharp than a faster speed.
It depends on how large you print
It depends on your standards.
It depends on the subject suitability.
I believe that while shooting at very low speeds can be useful, it is far less useful than some might think. If I need to be sure I get the shot, I will shoot with faster film. I'd rather have more grain and a sharp shot. And people move.
Certainly the impression that many RF shooters can walk around gaily shooting unbraced 1/4-1/15 with their 50mm lens, or even a 28, and come back with a good quality roll of shots (unless they are shooting buildings while leaning against another) is not realistic, but reading some threads you'd think that you have a problem if you are not able to do this while riding a unicycle with a spiky seat. Invariably the images shown to prove this are frequently dull even when they are 'sharp enough.'
Here is something that many of you will laugh at, but I an confident holds true for most people shooting under real world rather than test conditions:
1/focal length is pretty good minimum for use under controlled conditions, unbraced, but still taking care not to pull your shots. Slower than this and you can get sharp shots, but less often the slower you go and even the best are not as sharp as at higher speeds once you dip two or more stops slower.
If you are working quickly and I mean taking snap shots, working under physically demanding conditions, or on edge, or excited, or scared, or working in the heat or real cold, or (insert anything else that can make it hard to hold steady) i.e. the real conditions under which many of the best street/docum/reportage photos are taken, you should be looking at twice as fast as 1/focal length to be sure you still get good frames even when concentrating. Minimum.
Some people are steadier than others, but when doing documentary work I do not dip below the above rule unless I am braced or am working sedately. I work at 1/FL when things are smoooooth. I work at twice this exposure (i.e. 1/15th with a 35mm) only when braced, or squatting, kneeling with shoulder against wall etc, only when everything has slowed to a very controlled pace and only then when I absolutely have to.
PS If using a camera that allows you to leave the film leader out (including Leica M by feel) then all it takes is to change to faster film not to risk blurry shots.
While you can hand hold at very low speeds, some or more of the following usually apply:
You can't do it every time, so it is not reliable. I like reliable when special things unfold in front of my camera.
The results are invariably less sharp than a faster speed.
It depends on how large you print
It depends on your standards.
It depends on the subject suitability.
I believe that while shooting at very low speeds can be useful, it is far less useful than some might think. If I need to be sure I get the shot, I will shoot with faster film. I'd rather have more grain and a sharp shot. And people move.
Certainly the impression that many RF shooters can walk around gaily shooting unbraced 1/4-1/15 with their 50mm lens, or even a 28, and come back with a good quality roll of shots (unless they are shooting buildings while leaning against another) is not realistic, but reading some threads you'd think that you have a problem if you are not able to do this while riding a unicycle with a spiky seat. Invariably the images shown to prove this are frequently dull even when they are 'sharp enough.'
Here is something that many of you will laugh at, but I an confident holds true for most people shooting under real world rather than test conditions:
1/focal length is pretty good minimum for use under controlled conditions, unbraced, but still taking care not to pull your shots. Slower than this and you can get sharp shots, but less often the slower you go and even the best are not as sharp as at higher speeds once you dip two or more stops slower.
If you are working quickly and I mean taking snap shots, working under physically demanding conditions, or on edge, or excited, or scared, or working in the heat or real cold, or (insert anything else that can make it hard to hold steady) i.e. the real conditions under which many of the best street/docum/reportage photos are taken, you should be looking at twice as fast as 1/focal length to be sure you still get good frames even when concentrating. Minimum.
Some people are steadier than others, but when doing documentary work I do not dip below the above rule unless I am braced or am working sedately. I work at 1/FL when things are smoooooth. I work at twice this exposure (i.e. 1/15th with a 35mm) only when braced, or squatting, kneeling with shoulder against wall etc, only when everything has slowed to a very controlled pace and only then when I absolutely have to.
PS If using a camera that allows you to leave the film leader out (including Leica M by feel) then all it takes is to change to faster film not to risk blurry shots.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
BS (sorry, no offense) - or at least OT. he asked, we answered. there is no sense in exaggerating here, because holding still has absolutely nothing to do with good photography, and I think we're all aware of that (and the question wasn't about how to get the best street/reportage shots, but photography in general).
though it can come in handy, I just shot the 'walpurgisnacht' on the kreuzberg in berlin. very dark, full with people and police, stressful. a tripod is of no use here, the only way for me to go was iso 1600-3200, 35mm f1.2 and mostly 1/8-1/15s. the subjects' movement was hard enuogh to handle as it required to really concentrate on the timing, so I was glad I can handhold that. of COURSE, it still doesn't mean that the shots would come out great.
really, no big talk here.
Richard G
Veteran
Well said Turtle. But still it's interesting when you think of the shots that you might not even attempt if you don't have that spare roll of Neopan. I never thought of even trying less than 1/60 with my 135 but by analogy with what's possible with a 50, I might just get something useable, if pressed, at 1/30s. At least I'll try. Bill Pierce's chapter in the Leica Manual advises learning to pick when the action stops, when someone is giving a speech or a musician is playing....all these little details are just enlarging one's repertoire of skills. Out on the street I hate anything longer than 1/250 if I can help it.
gliderbee
Well-known
This is (IMHO) the essence of the thing.
If you have the "choice" between "shoot at 1/4s" or "no picture", I'll try to take the picture, each and every time. Only THEN, time permitting, I might change film if I have another film with me and if I'm not confident the picture I already took will be ok, but FIRST: taking the picture; all the rest when time permits.
One of the main advantages of digital (again, my opinion) is the ease to change iso and to not have to choose between color or B/W.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
agreed, longer than 1/250 usally bothers me in the streets, no matter how long or not I might be able to handhold.
ferider
Veteran
If 1/15th is safe, I wonder why we all invest in these expensive lenses Ahh, I forgot, must be for the bokeh.
Seriously, it completely depends on what you want to shoot. As much as possible, I try not to go below 1/250.
Roland.
Ahh, I forgot, must be for the bokeh.Seriously, it completely depends on what you want to shoot. As much as possible, I try not to go below 1/250.
Roland.
Turtle
Veteran
Simon,
I was certainly not knocking the OP at all... but would argue against the idea that 'holding the camera still [enough] has nothing to do with good photography.' Being able to hold the camera still enough has a lot to do with good photography of all varieties, or at least being able to control/predict whether you have held it still or not. There is a huge difference between thinking that you might get a sharp frame at X speed rather than knowing you will at another. This is all I am trying to challenge here - the lottery approach - because this is what very slow speed shooting is, but often it is presented as something that can be controlled rather more than is perhaps the case. Thats fine when you are playing about and results don't count, but it is suicide when you need to know you have nailed the shot. Heaven knows there are enough factors out there to steal if from you anyway! On the flip side if you want blurry shots, its a good idea not to shoot in the 'maybe zone' where you might end up with a sharp one!!!! Once again, its about being able to get the result you want, not that I am averse to accepting lucky results when I get it all wrong!
I am talking from a street/reportage perspective, but when shooting landscapes or still life, I will use a tripod and so will most people.
Just trawl the net and see how many threads have people commenting that they routinely get pin sharp frames at 1/4 to 1/8 with their 50mm hand held... as if it is like drawing breath. Now thats BS.
Gliderbee,
This is why I rarely shoot 100-125 films hand held any more even in 35mm, unless I know it will be bright the whole time, everywhere I will shoot. I lost too many good shots to slight camera shake from cutting it too fine or finding the shot appeared in the darkest conceivable place on an otherwise sunny day! Simple things like your foot not having good purchase causing a slight wobble at the moment of a great shot... or wind picking up from nowhere and rocking you gently. I'd rather have the grain penalty and more predictable results.
Like anyone, I will try the shot rather than not, but generally a bit of planning helps no end. I do wonder about people who wander about shooting alleys or back streets with their standard 100 speed film loaded and then talk about all these frames they shot at 1/4s.
Having some fast film on you in a pocket is no bother as is removing a roll of slow film part thru and replacing it with something faster when the clouds roll in. Choose a suitable pause in the action. You lose fewer frames doing this than you gain by not taking that pause to prepare for your shooting environment. Digital is of course very much better here.
I was certainly not knocking the OP at all... but would argue against the idea that 'holding the camera still [enough] has nothing to do with good photography.' Being able to hold the camera still enough has a lot to do with good photography of all varieties, or at least being able to control/predict whether you have held it still or not. There is a huge difference between thinking that you might get a sharp frame at X speed rather than knowing you will at another. This is all I am trying to challenge here - the lottery approach - because this is what very slow speed shooting is, but often it is presented as something that can be controlled rather more than is perhaps the case. Thats fine when you are playing about and results don't count, but it is suicide when you need to know you have nailed the shot. Heaven knows there are enough factors out there to steal if from you anyway! On the flip side if you want blurry shots, its a good idea not to shoot in the 'maybe zone' where you might end up with a sharp one!!!! Once again, its about being able to get the result you want, not that I am averse to accepting lucky results when I get it all wrong!
I am talking from a street/reportage perspective, but when shooting landscapes or still life, I will use a tripod and so will most people.
Just trawl the net and see how many threads have people commenting that they routinely get pin sharp frames at 1/4 to 1/8 with their 50mm hand held... as if it is like drawing breath. Now thats BS.
Gliderbee,
This is why I rarely shoot 100-125 films hand held any more even in 35mm, unless I know it will be bright the whole time, everywhere I will shoot. I lost too many good shots to slight camera shake from cutting it too fine or finding the shot appeared in the darkest conceivable place on an otherwise sunny day! Simple things like your foot not having good purchase causing a slight wobble at the moment of a great shot... or wind picking up from nowhere and rocking you gently. I'd rather have the grain penalty and more predictable results.
Like anyone, I will try the shot rather than not, but generally a bit of planning helps no end. I do wonder about people who wander about shooting alleys or back streets with their standard 100 speed film loaded and then talk about all these frames they shot at 1/4s.
Having some fast film on you in a pocket is no bother as is removing a roll of slow film part thru and replacing it with something faster when the clouds roll in. Choose a suitable pause in the action. You lose fewer frames doing this than you gain by not taking that pause to prepare for your shooting environment. Digital is of course very much better here.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
of course, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean that it has got nothing to do with good photography, but rather that it doesn't automatically make you a good photographer. my formulation was a bit clumsy, sorry.
true. but, given the subject (or the ground the photographer stands on) is not moving, I don't think people are just trying to show off when they say they can safely hold 1/8s with a 50mm (but there certainly are some/enough that do). I think I do and if I'm not sure, I take a second one, one of them will be sharp enough.
with my M's there's 4 different types of shutter speeds for me:
fast (1/1000 - 1/250)
medium (1/125-1/50)
slow (1/30-1/8)
very slow (1/4-1)
all 'very slow' times are pure gamble.
the problem is, and you're right about that too, that there are thousands and thousands of possible situations where you absolutely can't be sure you nailed it at 1/8s or 1/15s even, and our mighty cool handholding ability will help zero in one of these. everyone stating the opposite in this kind of situation is probably just waving his oh-so big balls from his balcony, indeed.
Last edited:
kossi008
Photon Counter
As has been said before, it's all a matter of statistics and standards.
If I want *reliable* 50 mm shots, I go for 1/125 or faster, or use a monopod/tripod.
I can play the shot lottery down to about 1/15. My trick for bracing is not to stop breathing, but relax, breathe easily, and release the shutter at the still-stand between inhaling and exhaling, thus minimizing the accompanying involuntary body movement...
Below 1/15, I seldom find a shot that satisfies my quality standards. I'll still try, but I'm very rarely happy with the results. Usually, these are just the kind of decisive-moment pictures you can't take twice, either. Damn.
PS: One advantage to the Rangefinder here, though: At least, I will always have some inkling as to whether I nailed it or blew it, as the viewfinder doesn't get dark at the decisive moment, as it does with SLRs...
If I want *reliable* 50 mm shots, I go for 1/125 or faster, or use a monopod/tripod.
I can play the shot lottery down to about 1/15. My trick for bracing is not to stop breathing, but relax, breathe easily, and release the shutter at the still-stand between inhaling and exhaling, thus minimizing the accompanying involuntary body movement...
Below 1/15, I seldom find a shot that satisfies my quality standards. I'll still try, but I'm very rarely happy with the results. Usually, these are just the kind of decisive-moment pictures you can't take twice, either. Damn.
PS: One advantage to the Rangefinder here, though: At least, I will always have some inkling as to whether I nailed it or blew it, as the viewfinder doesn't get dark at the decisive moment, as it does with SLRs...
Last edited:
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Seeing as this has devolved into darn near a pi55ing contest, I wanna see you guys reliably swapping to a faster film in the field with a Barnack Or even a Contax.
Bring a second body, for Pete's sake.
Me, I hate hate HATE switching mid-roll. Maybe with more practice I'd get good enough at it but in the process I'd be losing more shots due to frame overlap and additional scratch risk than it's worth.
I grew up shooting nothing but Fujichrome 100 in my dad's old Vito CL. Great education. I am not afraid to scale focus, and I learned to hold it steady. Because with a 1:3.5 lens and 100 speed film, it was either that or miss the shot.
Or even a Contax.Bring a second body, for Pete's sake.
Me, I hate hate HATE switching mid-roll. Maybe with more practice I'd get good enough at it but in the process I'd be losing more shots due to frame overlap and additional scratch risk than it's worth.
I grew up shooting nothing but Fujichrome 100 in my dad's old Vito CL. Great education. I am not afraid to scale focus, and I learned to hold it steady. Because with a 1:3.5 lens and 100 speed film, it was either that or miss the shot.