ezc203 Posted January 20, 2011 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) In my experience, with my MP I can get 35mm (and wider) down to 1/8th no problem. At 50mm, I feel confident with 1/15. With my CLE I can get 28mm down to 1/4th without worrying. 40mm down to 1/8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Hi ezc203, Take a look here Realistic shutter times expectations. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
italy74 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share #22 Posted January 20, 2011 Ciao Eddie and thanks from what you write, it seems to me you're even more confident to shoot with a CLE than with the MP.. is there any truth behind this ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 20, 2011 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2011 I remain skeptical that anyone can make a truly clear picture at less than 1/15th of a second. Can some post (or point to) a large image with, hopefully, EXIF data? Perhaps my opinion is skewed due to my personal experience and high expectations. I certainly cannot use less than 1/125th, at best. (And I reluctanly admit that I will be leaving 35mm photography soon to concentrate on tripod work with larger formats for that reason.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 20, 2011 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2011 I remain skeptical that anyone can make a truly clear picture at less than 1/15th of a second. Can some post (or point to) a large image with, hopefully, EXIF data? Me too (truly hand-held: no convenient pillars or walls, no chestpod or stringpod). I've put some of mine here: 1/15 second - jn's Photos . The ones at 1/15 are (IMHO) good enough but not as sharp as if I'd used a tripod. Likewise the ones at 1/10 or 1/5 - but they were the best of a dozen or more shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 20, 2011 Share #25 Posted January 20, 2011 John, that's far better than I can do at 1/15th. Thanks for the pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
italy74 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share #26 Posted January 20, 2011 Thanks, most of these are exactly what I call "reasonably sharp shots". People motion blur is of course unavoidable but the places are rendered with their natural looking even in dim light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxxceli Posted January 21, 2011 Share #27 Posted January 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nice shots John! I ill feel "unsafe" going under 1/60 on my m6... but it should come with practice and experience, right? RIGHT?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 21, 2011 Share #28 Posted January 21, 2011 Nice shots John! Thank you. I ill feel "unsafe" going under 1/60 on my m6... but it should come with practice and experience, right? RIGHT?? Practice and experience help - but only if you think carefully about how you're holding the camera and pressing the button. There's a "zen" element to it. If you search the forum (not the film forum specifically) you'll find some very good posts by Lars Bergquist describing how he does it and relating it to his experience as a marksman. Obviously, practice with a digital camera if you have one: it's cheaper and you get immediate feedback. Neverthless, some people just have steadier hands than others (cf. Pico in this thread), and medical conditions, prescription (or other) drugs and so on can have an influence. I was particularly happy with the shot of children in the museum, because I'd had to run to get into position in time. Fortunately there was a railing I could rest my elbows on to steady the camera. I do hope other people will post links to their slow-speed hand-held shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted January 21, 2011 Share #29 Posted January 21, 2011 That's great! (50mm - 1/4s), of course motion-blur isn't an issue here, I'm aware whatever moves in a such slow time is out of control, but being able to exploit long(er) shutter times opens new possibilities for me. I should have said "camera shake" instead of "motion blur." I've held the camera absolutely steady at 1/4 and have had camera shake at 1/60. What speeds you can hold steady depend on many different variables. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.