Fast lenses and SS dilemma

[WhoKnow]

Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.

 

[BBbuilder467]

I have order it yesterday, but don't receive yet. I take it for a portraits mainly.

Then you'll see right away what we're telling you. The shutter speed won't be "too fast".

 

[Autonerd]

Greetings.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

I think this is the disconnect -- it's slow shutter speeds that cause the problem (i.e. camera shake blurring the photo). If you're shooting at a fast speed, blur won't be a problem -- at least not blur from hand-held shooting.

(Blur can be a problem at f/1.4 because of the shallow depth-of-field. Wide open, the range of objects that look acceptably sharp will be small.)

If you did want to shoot wide open with a slower shutter speed (say, because you wanted to blur motion in the photograph), you could fit a neutral density filter (sunglasses for your camera!) to reduce the amount of light coming in.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

I think there are people who automatically think that a faster lens is better, without realizing that shooting at very large apertures brings its own complications.

Aaron

 

[Autonerd]

I understand that when the shutter speed is slow (long exposure), camera movement has a strong influence.

But purely logically it seems to me that with too fast (short exposure) shutter speeds, camera movement has an effect too. That is, for handheld shooting the shutter speed should not be too fast and too slow. Perhaps I am mistaken about this.

I think you are.

As far as I know, a faster shutter speed doesn't affect the actual speed of the parts in the camera. You don't get more inertia with a faster shutter speed.

Basically, most focal-plane shutters consist of two parts (let's call them curtains). When you release the shutter, the first curtain moves quickly to uncover the sensor (or the film), and then the second moves in the same direction to cover the sensor/film. Curtain movement is pretty darn close to instant (for the sake of our conversation).

Changing shutter speeds does not change the speed at which they move; it changes the time delay between the first and second curtain moving.

In other words: You shoot at a fast shutter speed, say 1/2000. The first curtain is released, and before it gets very far, the second curtain is released. (If you could watch in slow motion, it would be like a slit-sized opening moving across the sensor.)

You shoot at 2 second, the first curtain begins to move, makes it all the way across, and the sensor/film is exposed. We wait, we wait, we wait... and then two seconds later, the second curtain moves to cover up the sensor.

The bits and pieces move at the same speed, so a faster shutter speed doesn't cause any more (or less) camera shake.

HTH

Aaron

--
My Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aarongold/

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.

For reference: in (bright) SUNNY day ... @ f/1.4, you would need a Shutter-Speed of 1/16,000s (@ ISO-125).

That would NOT lead to blur/motion.

Indeed you would need an ND filter to even use the lens @ f/1.4 if your camera does not have 1/16,000s.

Note that f/8 would require 1/500s, (still a "safe" shutter-speed in most cases).

So I am confused about what you may mean, (a fast shutter speed does not blur/move).

 

[Colin Creevey]

Firstly, shutter speed and aperture can both be controlled for creative purposes. There is no "correct" setting for either of them but rather the correct settings are the ones that gives the result you want and allows you to get correct exposure.

Blur from slow shutter speed can occur from two separate things. Either objects/subjects in the scene are moving or it can come from camera shake. Using a faster shutter speed can negate both of these but reduces the amount of light captured.

A fast aperture (wide open) introduces more light but decreases the depth of field. In other words, more of the foreground and background will be out of focus. There are more factors affecting this than just the aperture.

I feel a lot of people (myself included) are confused why you think a faster shutter speed will increase the amount of blur? Are you suggesting that the faster shutter speed means you need to let in more light which will can be obtained using a larger aperture? In doing so you are decreasing the depth of field and this is what you are referring to as blur?

 

[AlbertTheLazy]

Apparently, I used the wrong words when I wrote about shutter speed.

I understand that when the shutter speed is slow (long exposure), camera movement has a strong influence.

But purely logically

Illogically!

it seems to me that with too fast (short exposure) shutter speeds, camera movement has an effect too.

What effect? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

That is, for handheld shooting the shutter speed should not be too fast and too slow. Perhaps I am mistaken about this.

Yes, you are.

 

[WhoKnow]

My thinking was that the camera shake in my hands lasts for a while. If the shutter speed is longer than that time, the shaking has an effect, if the shutter speed is much shorter, the shaking has no effect.

But if the shutter speed is not short enough, then the shaking has an effect and that is the shutter speed we can get when using the maximum open aperture on a fast lens.

That is, on a slow lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 in bright weather I won't get a dangerous shutter speed, but on a fast lens with an aperture of f/1.4 I might.

That's actually what the topic is about.

 

[alcelc]

I am not talking about professional photographer. Probably, I am talking about ordinary man who shoot for a joy and to save some moments.

Amateur is more correct.

The conclusion I made for myself: fast lenses in bright light and at maximum aperture can be used only with a ND filter to obtain acceptable shutter speeds.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Tom_N]

Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

You might want to avoid the use of the term "exposure triangle." Illumination, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO push and pull on each other – but technically, the ISO setting does not directly affect the amount of light that reaches the sensor.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

When taking photos with a lens open to f/1.4, in bright sunlight, it is necessary to greatly increase shutter speed – to make the shutter stay open for shorter times. This makes it easier to avoid blurring from hand-holding the camera, and from subject motion.

The real issue is that there may be so much light available that your camera runs out of room to increase the shutter speed, even at base ISO. In this situation, you can either stop down the aperture or attach a neutral density filter to the lens. Such filters block part of the light and are available in varying strengths.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

A neutral density filter will let you keep aperture at f/1.4 – to maintain a shallow depth of field – while increasing the time that the shutter has to stay open enough to stay within the camera's limits.

You can experiment with increasing aperture by full stops (f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 etc.) to see how strong of a ND filter you would want to buy.

Always shooting with a tripod is kind of a no-go in normal life.

Shooting with a tripod won't solve the problem of too much light. Adding a ND filter of the appropriate strength will.

Probably a silly question and has been discussed many times, sorry.

Thanks in advance for the answers.

 

[Tom_N]

That is, on a slow lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 in bright weather I won't get a dangerous shutter speed, but on a fast lens with an aperture of f/1.4 I might.

An aperture setting of f/4 is three stops (doublings of light) darker than one of f/1.4. So all other things being equal, the shutter will have to be open 8x as long at f/4 as at f/1.4. If the available light is dim enough, f/4 will become "dangerous" before f/1.4 does.

One rule of thumb says that to avoid excessive hand-shake blur, shutter speed should be at least as fast as 1 / (focal length of lens * crop factor).

Let's say you have a 70-300mm lens and are shooting at the telephoto setting. That is a relatively challenging scenario for controlling hand shake.

• On a film camera, the rule of thumb would call for 1/300th of a second shutter speed, or faster,
• On APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras without stabilization, you'd adjust the figure for the crop factor – making the requirement about 1/450th of a second, or faster,
• Many modern digital camera systems offer 2 to 4 stops of image stabilization – meaning you can hand-hold at speeds 4x to 16x slower without excessive hand shake blur. If your subject isn't moving, your shutter speed requirement might be only 1/112 of a second, if that.

At an aperture setting of f/1.4 or f/4, a scene lit by bright sunlight will definitely allow you to choose a shutter speed that's fast enough to control handshake. The issue is going to be whether you need a ND filter to reduce the light reaching the camera.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

My thinking was that the camera shake in my hands lasts for a while. If the shutter speed is longer than that time, the shaking has an effect, if the shutter speed is much shorter, the shaking has no effect.

Sorta correct ...

But if the shutter speed is not short enough, then the shaking has an effect and that is the shutter speed we can get when using the maximum open aperture on a fast lens.

Sorta correct ...

That is, on a slow lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 in bright weather I won't get a dangerous shutter speed, but on a fast lens with an aperture of f/1.4 I might.

Backwards ... not correct ...

That's actually what the topic is about.

Your topic is backwards ...

One of the reasons for a "fast" lens is to enable a "faster" shutter-speed (for easier/safer hand-holding) ... period

This can indeed enable shooting in lower-light (w/ still fast-enough shutter-speed).

Other reasons could be an (extremely) shallow DOF.

However f/1.4 cant be used on a (bright) sunny day unless you have 1/16,000s SS or ND-filters.

Note that using 1/16,000s SS is not a "problem" from a "hand-holding" perspective. So I fail to understand your concern.

Re-READ Tom's post above for an excellent point about hand-holdable SS's.

--
English is not my native language, so please be kind to my mistakes.

Your "english" does not seem to be the problem, but you may have a misunderstand of some points.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Greetings.

I am a beginner photographer and after studying the exposure triangle, a contradiction was born in my head.

A lot of sources advise fast aperture lenses for the sake of enhancing low light capabilities, shallow dof, beautiful bokeh and other things.

Let's say, our lens has an aperture of 1.4 and we are shooting handheld in sunny weather. With such aperture for normal exposure it is necessary to greatly decrease the shutter speed and here the problem begins - with fast shutter speed it is difficult to shoot handheld and avoid blurring.

Actually, at f/1.4 in a bright environment, shutter speed needs to increase - be very fast - to prevent overexposure. A fast shutter speed makes it relatively easy to handhold the camera and get a steady shot with movement frozen. Slow shutter speeds are more prone to show motion blur and shake from an unstable handhold.

What to do about it? If you decrease aperture for the sake of a slower shutter speed, you'll lose the advantages of fast lenses and then why pay for a 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8 or higher?

A neutral density filter is useful in these situations. It will knock down exposure by 1+ stops to allow use of a wide aperture (shallow depth of field), reasonable shutter speed, and low ISO in a bright environment.

 

[Autonerd]

That is, on a slow lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 in bright weather I won't get a dangerous shutter speed, but on a fast lens with an aperture of f/1.4 I might.

Nope. Aperture won't have an affect on camera shake,

Camera shake is generally caused by two things.

1) The photographer (most common). This comes from not being able to hold the camera steady, or from movement that comes from pushing the shutter button (which is why they say squeeze the shutter, don't press it, and try to do it with the hand that is not carrying the weight of the camera). This happens because of slow shutter speeds and is more apparent with longer lenses.

2) The mechanism (less common). This is generally a problem with SLRs/DSLRs and is the motion of the mirror swinging up and out of the way, and it is usually only a problem with VERY long lenses in which the lens amplifies the movement (think of a lever). This happens because the mirror is heavy (relative to other parts of the camera) and requires a forceful mechanism to get it out of the way quickly. The other moving parts (shutter, aperture leaves and their mechanisms, auto-focus components) cause negligible motion.

Generally a fast shutter speed is enough to overcome these sources of camera shake. In the few cases it won't (a very long lens and a "slow" max speed of 1/1000), cameras will have a mirror lock-up mechanism to reduce that main source of vibration.

Opening the aperture leaves wider won't cause vibration; it's a fairly balanced movement and the parts weigh next to nothing compared to the rest of the camera and have little to no intertia.

Does this answer the question? I'm still not 100% sure why you think a larger aperture can cause shake.

Aaron

 

[WhoKnow]

Of course I am talking about shake from photographer itself. I wrote twice or more about hadheld shooting.

Yes, my question is answered, thanks to all!

 

[rsn]

I don't know how bad your hand shake is but I went through chemo this past summer. Hand shake became really bad for me, really bad. I used a monopod with a kind of homemade sling from the top so I could press down on the monopod I used.

I suggest you try out a monopod if the shakes are bad for you. Monopods are very flexible, not like a tripod, they are cheap, you don't need a carbon fiber jobby, and the head used on a monopod is cheap - forget the model of head most use.

 

[Bobthearch]

Of course I am talking about shake from photographer itself. I wrote twice or more about hadheld shooting.

Yes, my question is answered, thanks to all!

I'm pretty good handheld down to 1/60 sec, especially with the vibration reduction technology built into modern cameras and lenses.

With a wide angle lens, 1/30 sec is ok.

How dark do you really need to shoot handheld?

It was pretty darned dark when I took this, 1/60 sec, ISO 400, kit zoom lens. I could have cranked the ISO more. And I could have used a fast prime, but I don't like the focal length for much and never carry it.


f/4.5 with Nikon kit zoom lens. Handheld for 1/60 sec.

Shooting RAW (of course), adjusting the exposure and lifting shadows just a bit gets me this:


Same shot with adjustments to exposure and shadows.



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/