Min shutter speed "rule" as it relates to various sensor formats & FLs.

[sirhawkeye64]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Yes, you got that right. The rule, however is quite vague, however, since it depends on the photographer, the circumstances, and the subject, etc. If you crop, you need a shorter exposure time. The rule also does not take into account image stabilization, which can extend the useful shutter speed by several stops.

 

[Michael Fryd]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

Short answer:

Yes, multiple the actual focal length by the crop factor. With a 35mm lens on a 1.5X crop body, the rule suggests 1/52 or faster for the shutter speed. 1/60 would be a reasonable choice.

Long answer:

The general rule is that for handheld photography, with a full frame camera, the shutter speed should be faster that 1/Focal-Length.

This is, of course, a general rule. Some photographers are better at hand holding, some are worse.

If you are using a crop body then it should be the equivalent focal length. On a 1.5X crop body with a 50mm lens, the rule suggests 1/75 or faster (50 * 1.5).

If your camera has image stabilization, it will usually be advertised as proving X stops of stabilization. You may be able to use a shutter speed that many stops slower.

Consider a 2X body with a 400mm lens. The rule suggests a handheld shutter speed of 1/800 or faster. If the camera offers two stops of image stabilization, then you could try 1/200 or faster.

ISO isn't a direct factor. it is an indirect factor as at lower ISO settings you tend to use higher exposures. Higher exposures may require slower shutter speeds.

.

Higher pixel counts may affect this. If your camera has a very high pixel count, and you want it to be very sharp at 100% magnification, then you may need to use a faster shutter speed.

If you are more concerned about the final print, then pixel count may not be a factor.

An 8x10 print at 300ppi is about 7.2 megapixels. You are going to get the same print from a 12 megapixel camera as a 50 megapixel camera. Thus it doesn't matter whether you get a pixel or two of shake at 50 megapixels.

If you are making a 16 x 20 print, it will likely be viewed from twice the distance as an 8x10 print, and 7.2 megapixels is still going to be enough.

Now if you are cropping your image, you need a faster shutter speed. if you crop image from a 50mm lens to match a 100mm lens, then you need a two stop faster minimum shutter speed. That cropping yields the same results as moving the 50mm lens to a 2X crop body.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

OK and I was kind of thinking about that playing around with the Fuji XT30 I have with a Viltrox prime, neither of which are stabilized. For longer glass though it might be more challenging (although many long lenses these days are stabilized).

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Yes, you got that right. The rule, however is quite vague, however, since it depends on the photographer, the circumstances, and the subject, etc. If you crop, you need a shorter exposure time. The rule also does not take into account image stabilization, which can extend the useful shutter speed by several stops.

Yes that's true. I know on my FF's I know people who claim at least to be able to shoot down to 1/10s. For me, probably 1/30s is a safe bet, depending on the FL of course.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Yes, you got that right. The rule, however is quite vague, however, since it depends on the photographer, the circumstances, and the subject, etc. If you crop, you need a shorter exposure time. The rule also does not take into account image stabilization, which can extend the useful shutter speed by several stops.

Yes that's true. I know on my FF's I know people who claim at least to be able to shoot down to 1/10s. For me, probably 1/30s is a safe bet, depending on the FL of course.

That's one steady person. Must have a tranquil existence. I am overjoyed in using my stabilized lenses because I needed about 1/100 to get rid of blur at 50mm.

And I always shot landscapes on a tripod with a remote release and mirror up delay. But now I don't have to.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Yes, you got that right. The rule, however is quite vague, however, since it depends on the photographer, the circumstances, and the subject, etc. If you crop, you need a shorter exposure time. The rule also does not take into account image stabilization, which can extend the useful shutter speed by several stops.

Yes that's true. I know on my FF's I know people who claim at least to be able to shoot down to 1/10s. For me, probably 1/30s is a safe bet, depending on the FL of course.

That's one steady person. Must have a tranquil existence. I am overjoyed in using my stabilized lenses because I needed about 1/100 to get rid of blur at 50mm.

And I always shot landscapes on a tripod with a remote release and mirror up delay. But now I don't have to.

yeah I agree but again, he could have been talking about wider focal lengths like on a 24-70 and may have been doing other things to help bolster this claim (like shooting short bursts at 1/10s).

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture. It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close. Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It doesn't matter. Lens sharpness has also never been part of the calculation. Effectively, the formula (and that for DoF) assume infinite lens sharpness and sensor resolution. The evaluation turns only on the point at which the size of the blur in the final picture become visible to the viewer. In the case of motion blur, this is the point at which the angular motion of camera shake produces a blur that is perceptible in a picture of a given size. As I noted, this is essentially the same as depth of field, where it is the perception of defocus blur (created by an ideal lens) that is being evaluated. Neither depends of lens or sensor quality or resolution.

Dave

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close. Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

Here's a case where AI is actually useful. This is summarizing the factors that are accounted for in the motion blur limits used in photography. (Because copying and pasting the text mangles the math symbols, I'm pasting this as screenshots):





The "image blur in inches" is translated to the similar limit of visual acuity used in DoF, to determine the point at which the size of the blur become perceptible. It also depends on the degree of enlargement, viewing distance, and presumed visual acuity of the viewer.

Dave

--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It doesn't matter. Lens sharpness has also never been part of the calculation. Effectively, the formula (and that for DoF) assume infinite lens sharpness and sensor resolution. The evaluation turns only on the point at which the size of the blur in the final picture become visible to the viewer. In the case of motion blur, this is the point at which the angular motion of camera shake produces a blur that is perceptible in a picture of a given size. As I noted, this is essentially the same as depth of field, where it is the perception of defocus blur (created by an ideal lens) that is being evaluated. Neither depends of lens or sensor quality or resolution.

Dave

Of course it matters. Handheld motion blur is going to be far more consequential with a much higher resolution lens/sensor.

With a higher resolution lens/camera, a significantly higher shutter speed is required to eliminate the visible effects of handheld motion blur, therefore the calculation must be different.

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It doesn't matter. Lens sharpness has also never been part of the calculation. Effectively, the formula (and that for DoF) assume infinite lens sharpness and sensor resolution. The evaluation turns only on the point at which the size of the blur in the final picture become visible to the viewer. In the case of motion blur, this is the point at which the angular motion of camera shake produces a blur that is perceptible in a picture of a given size. As I noted, this is essentially the same as depth of field, where it is the perception of defocus blur (created by an ideal lens) that is being evaluated. Neither depends of lens or sensor quality or resolution.

Dave

Of course it matters. Handheld motion blur is going to be far more consequential with a much higher resolution lens/sensor.

With a higher resolution lens/camera, a significantly higher shutter speed is required to eliminate the visible effects of handheld motion blur, therefore the calculation must be different.

Nope. That has never been the case, which is why neither lens nor film/sensor resolution or quality has ever been a part of the rule of thumb. As I have said, the formula has always assumed a perfect lens and infinite recording resolution. It hinges only the degree of angular motion that occurs during a given shutter time.

See documentation below.

Dave

 

[Dem Bell]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It is the same if you are comparing two A4 prints side by side. Or indeed under any IDENTICAL viewing conditions at which the low res image does not look pixilated yet.

Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It doesn't matter. Lens sharpness has also never been part of the calculation. Effectively, the formula (and that for DoF) assume infinite lens sharpness and sensor resolution. The evaluation turns only on the point at which the size of the blur in the final picture become visible to the viewer. In the case of motion blur, this is the point at which the angular motion of camera shake produces a blur that is perceptible in a picture of a given size. As I noted, this is essentially the same as depth of field, where it is the perception of defocus blur (created by an ideal lens) that is being evaluated. Neither depends of lens or sensor quality or resolution.

Dave

Of course it matters. Handheld motion blur is going to be far more consequential with a much higher resolution lens/sensor.

With a higher resolution lens/camera, a significantly higher shutter speed is required to eliminate the visible effects of handheld motion blur, therefore the calculation must be different.

Nope. That has never been the case, which is why neither lens nor film/sensor resolution or quality has ever been a part of the rule of thumb. As I have said, the formula has always assumed a perfect lens and infinite recording resolution. It hinges only the degree of angular motion that occurs during a given shutter time.

See documentation below.

Dave

Well, the old rule of thumb fails to take into account real-world considerations - hence the need for an update.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It is the same if you are comparing two A4 prints side by side. Or indeed under any IDENTICAL viewing conditions at which the low res image does not look pixilated yet.

That’s only true if you’re not looking to improve upon the old lens/film resolution limitations. I think most folks will want to get the most out of their modern lenses and sensors - which will require a higher handheld shutter speed to achieve.

Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It doesn't matter. Lens sharpness has also never been part of the calculation. Effectively, the formula (and that for DoF) assume infinite lens sharpness and sensor resolution. The evaluation turns only on the point at which the size of the blur in the final picture become visible to the viewer. In the case of motion blur, this is the point at which the angular motion of camera shake produces a blur that is perceptible in a picture of a given size. As I noted, this is essentially the same as depth of field, where it is the perception of defocus blur (created by an ideal lens) that is being evaluated. Neither depends of lens or sensor quality or resolution.

Dave

Of course it matters. Handheld motion blur is going to be far more consequential with a much higher resolution lens/sensor.

With a higher resolution lens/camera, a significantly higher shutter speed is required to eliminate the visible effects of handheld motion blur, therefore the calculation must be different.

Nope. That has never been the case, which is why neither lens nor film/sensor resolution or quality has ever been a part of the rule of thumb. As I have said, the formula has always assumed a perfect lens and infinite recording resolution. It hinges only the degree of angular motion that occurs during a given shutter time.

See documentation below.

Dave

Well, the old rule of thumb fails to take into account real-world considerations - hence the need for an update.

I'm kind of at a loss here, since I have shown that the rule never depended on any lens or film/sensor factor, so changes in those don't require any "update"; they are irrelevant.

If you will, the formula is already ""calibrated" for the best possible lens and sensor, so there is no need to adjust it no matter how much better those elements get.

Dave

 

[dsjtecserv]

I may have asked this question a long time ago but forgot what the "answer" was. This really isn't a beginner's question so much but more a question on technique as it relates to some basic concepts of photography and exposure I guess, mainly shutter speed as it applies to different formats.

So, we are generally told that the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, but I'm assuming this implies a FF focal length, and does not factor in any stabilization as this rule has been around since before lens/body stabilization...

Using APSC an example, with a 1.5 crop, would we also multiple the shutter speed by 1.5x to determine a safe min shutter speed since the crop results in a narrower field of view, and shake is more visible at narrower/longer focal lengths in general? So if I have a 35mm FF lens on an APSC body, which is roughly at 52mm equivalent, my minimum shutter speed should be around 1/60s correct?

(I know that aperture and ISO and lens/body stabilization are also factors, but I'm looking strictly at the scenario of no stabilization and trying to keep this simple for my own reference.).

As today’s lenses and sensors are capable of significantly higher resolution than back in the film days, I would stretch that old rule of thumb to at least 2X/focal length for APS-C.

This rule has never had anything to do with resolution of the recording medium. It relates only the point at which blur become visible in a full picture.

It is calculated as a rough percentage of the picture frame (and a presumed degree of enlargement, viewing distance and visual acuity) where the motion blur would become perceptible. It is very closely related to the concept of depth of field (which is also independent of resolution) in that it estimates the point at which blur becomes visible in a finished picture. But the shutter speed rule is not meant to be quite as precise as DoF, since it also depends on other factors that can't be really accounted for; it is meant as a useful rule of thumb as a starting point.

You can, of course, modify the formula to make it more conservative, for whatever reason. But it needs to be recognized that by using an unnecessarily fast shutter speed you may be reducing the amount of light used to make the picture, which also negatively affects image quality.

Dave

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close.

It is the same if you are comparing two A4 prints side by side. Or indeed under any IDENTICAL viewing conditions at which the low res image does not look pixilated yet.

That’s only true if you’re not looking to improve upon the old lens/film resolution limitations. I think most folks will want to get the most out of their modern lenses and sensors - which will require a higher handheld shutter speed to achieve.

Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

I think you are falling into the common trap of evaluating sharpness when pixel peeping. When viewing a full picture, the pixels are not perceptible. Only the actual size of the blur, which will be spread across many pixels, matters for the perception of whether blur is present or not. Again, this is the same principle as use for depth of field. You evaluate DoF over a full picture, not at the pixel level.

A long-time member of this forum was fond of pointing out that "a sharp picture is just one that hasn't been enlarged enough yet." If you try to evaluate blur at the pixel level, ultimately nothing is sharp, whether the cause is focus or motion.

Dave

 

[Michael Fryd]

…And you think the point at which motion blur becomes visible is the same for a vintage lens on a film camera and a state of the art modern lens with a modern high pixel density/high resolution digital sensor? It is most definitely not the same, not even really close. Not to mention the fact that, with today’s high ISO sensor performance, you can minimize motion blur issues at higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs without suffering significant noise issues.

Consider an 8x10 print at 300ppi. There are 2,400 printed pixels along the 8" inch side.

Suppose our criteria for acceptable motion blur was 1 printed pixel.

If we had a 2,400 by 3,600 pixel sensor (8.64 megapixels) then we need to keep the camera shake at, or below, one sensor pixel.

if we had a 4,800 by 7,200 pixels sensor (34.56 megapixels) then we would need to keep the camera shake at, or below, four sensor pixels.

If your concern is how camera shake will affect the final image, then what matters is the size and viewing conditions of the final image. Sensor resolution is not a factor.

On the other hand, if you want to blow up the image as much as you can on your screen, and examine fine details, then resolution does come into play.

So for those who care about results, resolution isn't a factor. For those that care about details that are not visible in the final print, resolution is certainly a factor.