The Hand Holding "Rule"

[john_r_smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is probably a somewhat entry-level question, but it has had me puzzled for ages now. You may remember the old-school photography “law” ( a bit like the “Sunny 16” rule, really), that you can hand-hold the camera without camera shake down to the shutter speed which most nearly equals the focal length of the lens, but no slower. So you can hand-hold a 50mm lens down to 1/60s, for example, or a 28mm down to 1/30s, on a 35mm camera.

 

All right so far, but here is my problem – does the same rule apply no matter what format of camera the lens is attached too (whether it be an APS digital sensor or 6x9 medium format film), or does the rule actually apply to the field of view, not the focal length? In other words, if I have a 50mm lens on a MF 6x6 camera, is 1/60s the slowest hand-held speed, or is it 1/30s, because the lens FOV is equivalent to a 28mm on a 35mm camera?

 

Thanks in advance for your input

 

John

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Here's my take - a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. Assuming all else is equal, at a given slowish shutter speed it will "shake" through the same angle. Doesn't matter if it is a Hassy 50 or a Leica 50, it will leave a blur mark of a given size (the image a lens projects cannot change simply because of the size of film behind it).

 

Assuming that you are looking for a specific final enlargement size, say 11 x 14 - the MF neg will need less enlargement than a 35mm neg. Therefore, even though a 50 will blur equally on MF or 35mm film - the blur will be 'smaller" in the final print from an MF shot - thus the MF 50 DOES behave more or less like a 35mm "28".

 

OTOH IF your expectation is that MF should have better image quality than 35mm - then you want the blur from shaking to be less as well - i.e. less visible defects (blur) from an MF 50 than from a 35mm 28. In that case, you're better off going by actual focal length - go no lower than 1/60 with ANY 50 on ANY format.

 

Take the "flip" case - mount that same 50 on a small-sensor digicam - or an 8mm movie camera (if you prefer film to digital) - where it gives the FoV of a 200mm telephoto - and you're likely to see shake just as much as with a "real" 200mm on full-frame 35mm.

 

I tend to take the most conservative approach - I assume the "rule" only applies to 35mm lenses in a direct mathematical sense. Then use whichever gives a higher shutter speed - the 35mm rule OR the "effective focal length".

 

I.E., on MF I would still stick with 1/60 for a 50, as on 35mm. But if the 50 is an effective 200mm (on small format film or digital) - I would use 1/250th.

 

There are other factors, of course. On a Hassy with a big thumping mirror thrashing around inside, I would likely add a safety margin and go no slower than 1/125th, even with a "wide-angle" 50mm. A heavy camera may be sturdier - or it may tire your hand/arm muscles and result in MORE shaking. A small Leica may be more prone to shake due to its low mass - or it may be easier to hold firmly against your face. And so on....

[lct]

I take into account fields of view instead of focal lengths personally.

For instance i try to avoid slower speeds than 1/450s when i use a 300mm lens on my APS-C DSLRs (1.5x crop factor).

[masjah]

Just as relevant as format size is the nature of the machine; everyone knows that M's are wonderful machines to hand-hold at slow speeds. But the same is not necessarily true of an R. With my R8/9, I find the conventional wisdom of the reciprocal of focal length as the hand-holding limit to be hopelessly optimistic; but then I'm just bad at it - breath control, gentle squeezing and all that notwithstanding! (Alan Bower though, in his book on Leica R photography, seems to agree with me.) I try to use the reciprocal of 3 to 4 times the focal length if possible - which a lot of times it isn't at all of course. Fortunately, for a lot of my architectural photography, I can use a tripod.

 

I'm sure most people are much, much better at hand-holding than I am! (My little Minilux though - which I love as much as Bill Palmer does his XA - is much more forgiving.)

[Guest flatfour]

I might have mentioned this before but in 1954 the master who ran the camera Club at school demonstrated to us that any picture taken handheld at under 1/200th sec would show camera shake. At that time all our cameras were 6x6 or 6x9. We all photographed a lined chart at minimum aperture in bright sunlight with HP2 , first hand held, and then on a tripod. I recall that only one handheld negative showed no shake when blown up to the equivalent of 24inches square and which the master said was probably due to luck. All the tripod pictures were pin sharp. Ever since then I have always used shutter priority if available or never less than 1/200th. Some experiences never leave you..

[rosuna]

Erwin Puts explains in his Leica Lens Compendium that the rule 1/f = 1/s is not true.

Much higher shutter speeds are needed. Statistic studies seems to have corroborated it (the source is Puts himself).

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that the rule is, like most rules in photography, somewhat arbitrary. There are too many variables involved for an absolute rule to be formed, not the least of which is the degree of motion blur a given photographer finds acceptable for a given picture at a given size. I recently made pictures with the Sony R1 at 1/4 second handheld and the degree of blur from my motion was acceptable to me.

 

But if I was to apply a rule, I agree that it would apply to field of view and not to focal length per se. But the "hand-holding rule" is one of the many "rules" in photography that I've ignored for many years.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[john_r_smith]

Yes, well of course a great deal depends on the camera in use and the particular circumstances. I have recently hand-held the LC1 at 1/15s inside dimly-lit churches and got pretty good results (that is, sharp enough for an A5 print). I used to hand-hold my Rolleiflex all the time, but of course that just had a leaf shutter, so no vibration.

 

John

[stunsworth]

Like hyperfocal focussing, what speed you can handhold is all about acceptable compromise.

[Bob Ross]

Andy,

Another twist on your take is to look at magnification as it reflects optical leverage and relates to format size. If you use a lens equal to the diagonal of the sensor, then at one meter, you will get an image with a one meter diagonal or 1X. Double the focal length and get half a meter diagonal subject, from the same distance and so forth. As you do this, the optical lever changes. This implies that the rule might not quite so linear. Then there is the system + operator ambiant shock factor, how you squeeze, jab or stab the shutter + what happens in your little black box (mirrors & delays). Individual health, age and coffe intake are probably part of the aystem shake-MTF....:-)

Bob

[jrc]

And the other consideration is the final use of the print. Use the reciprocal for snapshots -- a little softness doesn't hurt family portraits, and may help them. For newspaper photographers, the final reproduction, on newsprint, is so poor that it really doesn't make too much difference. For fine art wall display, you might want to use a tripod, unless you put on a label that says, "In this shot, I was going for a kind of impressionist effect."

 

JC

[andybarton]

As a preference, I would always use a tripod for the sort of thing I do.

 

Apparently, that is not the Leica way.

[rosuna]

A tripod is the ideal solution. For landscape photography, for instance, it is a sine qua non condition. But Leica M cameras are small and silent cameras, and they are used for discrete street/journalism photography, handheld.

[Guest flatfour]

Andy - I agree, when I can find a suitable surface. The Leica mintripod is an essential piece of kit.

[sean_reid]

As a preference, I would always use a tripod for the sort of thing I do.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

That's the crux of it, isn't it? It depends on what sorts of pictures one is making. Some are well suited to the pace of tripod work but many, of course, are not. When I'm using an RF camera, it tends to be handheld.

 

BTW, what sort of pictures do you do?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[albertwang]

That rules doesn't apply anymore. We have IS lenses and Mega OIS lenses now. We are anti-shake kinda guys here.

[frc]

No tripod at hand. No choice so lets shoot.

8th of a second f1.4 35 lux asph

Amterdam "t IJ

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[kobold]

Bracing, either on your own body, or on something rigid, can add 2–3 stops, for sure. I posted on this here a while ago. Having said that, I generally use a tripod for anything intended for advertising (print).

 

Finally, Canon's IS system is good, too, having only just invested in this. Last week, I used one of the Canon ones (plus studio flash) to shoot food hand-held, and I definitely would not have done that two years ago. At 1/125 (at 105mm) all 240 images were tack sharp. Final use was big poster enlegements, so sharpness was critical.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear