Wider angle = lesser camera shake?

[BenjaminXYZ]

I go by the logic that the longer your lens (focal length), the more pron-ed to camera shakewill itbe. So what happens at the opposite end? (The wide end) [Iassume that it will be the complete opposite?]

[Tom LaPrise]

You're still as prone to actual shake, but you won't notice it as much at the wide-angle end because the "shake angle" is a smaller portion of the field of view at wide angle than it is at telephoto.
Imagine a long rod attached to the end of your lens, pointing forward. Your camera shake will move the rod around, creating a sort of cone-shaped pattern with the narrow end at the camera. Now, at the wide angle end of your zoom, your field of view is a huge cone compared to the "cone of shaking" (not a technical term at all :? ), but at the tele end, your field of view is a much narrower cone, and your imaginary shake cone is bigger compared to it than to the wide-angle field of view.

The bottom line is that for a given amount of shake, you'll notice it more with longer focal lengths and less with shorter focal lengths.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Thanks for the interesting illustration.

Sois it true that I will be able to keep a wider angle shot more steady and keep it less blurry?

[jacks]

Think of two lenses. One is a telephoto that covers 10 degrees of the field of view, the other a wide angle that covers 100 degrees.
Now suppose that during an exposure the camera turns through one degree.
With the telephoto, one degree is 10% of the field of view. With the wide-angle it is only 1%. The blur due to this motion will be 10 times worse on the tele.
You won't be able to keep a wide angle any steadier than any other lens. It just won't blur your pictures as much.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Think of two lenses. One is a telephoto that covers 10 degrees of the field of view, the other a wide angle that covers 100 degrees.
Now suppose that during an exposure the camera turns through one degree.
With the telephoto, one degree is 10% of the field of view. With the wide-angle it is only 1%. The blur due to this motion will be 10 times worse on the tele.
You won't be able to keep a wide angle any steadier than any other lens. It just won't blur your pictures as much.

Alright thanks, I really got it this time! :-)

I am concerned about the blurry part. So the wide angle lens will somehow be less proned to blurry shots compared to a longer focal length. (I meant: kind of less shaky - easier to control)

[tmoreau]

The general rule of thumb in 35mm is that you need a shutter speed 1/FL to handhold and not get blurry pictures.

28mm = 1/30
50mm = 1/60
400mm = 1/500

Just a generalization/guideline, and with dslr dont forget to convert to 35mm equivilent focal lengths.

[BenjaminXYZ]

The general rule of thumb in 35mm is that you need a shutter speed 1/FL to handhold and not get blurry pictures.

28mm = 1/30
50mm = 1/60
400mm = 1/500

Just a generalization/guideline, and with dslr dont forget to convert to 35mm equivilent focal lengths.

Thanks for the infos. Looks like 24 mm will be slightly more hand holdable. :-)

[Morag2]

I don't know any technical details, but yes, you can use longer shutter lengths at wide angles.

This is a very rare kind of case, but I shot a wide angle picture at one full second shutter speed with no blur... now that is an extreme, no "real" shot could be done like that, I took that while sitting back with the camera resting against my body for very good steadiness, and my camera has image stabilization.

Now blind luck aside, if you use a wide angle image stabilization lens, I bet you can take steady shots at 1/4 easily.

[Rriley]

tmoreau wrote:

The general rule of thumb in 35mm is that you need a shutter speed 1/FL to handhold and not get blurry pictures.

28mm = 1/30
50mm = 1/60
400mm = 1/500

Just a generalization/guideline, and with dslr dont forget to convert to 35mm equivilent focal lengths.

just to confirm that is the correct rule: 1 over the 35mm equiv value of the lens

Riley