Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 10, 2008, 12:41 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Just a simple question about minimum shutter speeds.
As a example.... if I have a 200mm lens is the min speed be 200th/sec. If that's the case, what if I have a cropped 1.6x camera do I need to factor that in as well.
So with a cropped body and a 200mm lens do I need to change the shutter to 320th/sec as a min. requirement. thanks
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 10, 2008, 6:54 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Well every person is different. The 'one over focal length' thing is just a guideline. But, 1/320 is the safe assumption.

But again - it's just a guideline. For instance a 300mm 5.6 lens is a heckuva lot lighter and easier to hold steady t han a 300mm 2.8 lens. So not all focal lengths are created equal.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 6:59 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

That's all correct and your technique is going to be key. I was shooting this weekend with a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (read heavy) handheld at 1/200th - 1/250th of a second no problem. If you are not used to the weight and don't have the technique then you are probably going to want 1/400th.

But in general with the 1/(35mm equivalent focal length) you are quite safe in normal conditions.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 9:04 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
surfnron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 578
Default

With the cost of shooting digital images where it is now, I'd suggest experimenting....
I can sometimes get a sharp image shooting a 400L, (no is), at 1/250 - in a kayak.
Ron
surfnron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 12:14 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Thanks for all the replies. But I think that my question may have been lost with good hand holding techiques. My initial question is... if cropped body cameras changes the minimun shutter speed guidlines.
Now that is has been brought up. Does good hand holding techniques help with quick moving subjects, ie sports, shooting below 400th/sec. So if my technique really improves can I shoot sporting events at 320th/sec or lower. Thanks
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 12:31 PM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

garman wrote:
Quote:
So if my technique really improves can I shoot sporting events at 320th/sec or lower. Thanks
Not in the way you're thinking about it. Good hand-holding will not prevent motion blur. A hand is movin at a certain speed, no matter how you hold the camera, that hand will be blurred below a certain speed. And by the way, the speed required is dependent upon the motion. Want to freeze the delivery of a major league pitcher at release point - 1/4000 is probably a good speed.

But, experience will help you pick obtainable shots if you're in a situation where you cant get ideal shutter speeds. Situations where there is a natural pause in motion. So you adjust the types of shots you attempt to obtain (for example, shooting the pitcher in the stretch rather than at point of release).

But you could have your gear mounted on a tripod and that release point of a major league pitcher is going to show significant blurring at 1/320. So the experienced sports shooter will do one of two things when faced with that situation:

1. Choose different shots that they know they can get with 1/320 and not waste time and memory and shutter actuations on shots they have a very low chance at getting.

or

2. If they need the shot frequently enough - invest in the right equipment to do the job well. Sports shooting is a very equipment intensive sport. And no matter how much a person might want to, they wouldn't have much success say shooting a HS basketball game with the standard kit lens and available light. It's just the wrong tool for the job.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 12:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

depends on the desired effect.

if its a very fast action sport 1/200 would blur most of the action. While if its a moderately fast sport like cricket u can get some good effects like this one




nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 7:06 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

nymphetamine, I have most of my action shots like that because I am shooting indoors. The only time I get to freeze action is when I get a brief pause on the subject. So I'm happy with some of the results.
JohnG, thanks for the response. Also thanks for the tips on selective shooting. I'll try that at the next game.
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 7:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 278
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
That's all correct and your technique is going to be key. I was shooting this weekend with a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (read heavy) handheld at 1/200th - 1/250th of a second no problem. If you are not used to the weight and don't have the technique then you are probably going to want 1/400th.

But in general with the 1/(35mm equivalent focal length) you are quite safe in normal conditions.
Mark, I have Canon 70-200 2.8 L lens. Now i'm thinking of buying the Bigma 50-500, but..... is it better to buy the 120-300 sigma lens and use my teleconvertor 1.4x. I know I am short-changing myself 50mm. Bigma is not really 500mm. I like the versatility of the f2.8 lens. The cost of the 500m is 1500 dollars less. So would the 300mm with the 1.4x extender be as good as the bigma 500mm at the tele end. thanks
garman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2008, 7:33 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I don't know what you are looking to shoot (unless I missed that post) but it will affect which of the lens options would be best for you. If you are shooting sports/wildlife then 500mm f4 or Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 would be good options. I have had good wildlife shots with the 120-300 even with a 2x TC when stopped down to f8 or so. I even have done OK at f5.6 (that is wide open on a f2.8 lens with a 2x TC - for anyone new to this game who is reading). If you check out these threads you will see some examples (scroll down on the first as there are some 100% crops to see the pixel detail).

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...857780#p857780

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...861862#p861862

I would say if general long shooting is your thing then the 50-500, shooting wildlife at a higher level or long range sports shooting the Canon 500mm f4 and all round sports with options for going longer then the 120-300mm f2.8.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:43 AM.