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

[chrisfisheye]

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.).

The minimum shutter speed does not really depend on sensor size. Otherwise you could choose the most advantageous format which allows the slowest shutter speed.

The rule of thumb is correct (and must simply adapt with the photographer skills and potentially by the use of stabilisation). It uses the equivalent FL, so this is equivalent to say that for a fiven angle of view, it will require the same minimum speed.

 

[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.).

The minimum shutter speed does not really depend on sensor size. Otherwise you could choose the most advantageous format which allows the slowest shutter speed.

The rule of thumb is correct (and must simply adapt with the photographer skills and potentially by the use of stabilisation). It uses the equivalent FL, so this is equivalent to say that for a fiven angle of view, it will require the same minimum speed.

This is correct, though it has to be noted that angle of view is a function of both focal length and sensor size, so implicitly sensor size is a factor. And that is why the "equivalent" focal length is used.

This is the same concept as depth of field calculations, which must account of the size of the blur recorded by the sensor after it is enlarged to viewing size in a full picture. The degree of enlargement is accounted for by the circle of confusion, which varies by sensor size. Alternatively, the CoC can be eliminated by simplifying the equation to use angle of view, but that again depends on both focal length and sensor size.

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.

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

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

 

[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

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Sigh. I have already addressed that, multiple times. I'm going to assume that other people who may be interested in this topic will get it. As I said originally, you are free of use whatever formula you want, for whatever reasons, so long as you understand that needlessly reducing the light used to make the pictures inherently works against image quality.

Dave

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping instead of how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping over how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

The question here is about minimum acceptable shutter speed, not sensor size. A too-slow shutter speed will have a greater resolution/detail limiting effect on a higher pixel density sensor than a lower one - which, unless you’re OK with not taking advantage of that state of the art lens and sensor you paid for, should absolutely figure into any rule of thumb calculation.

 

[dsjtecserv]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping over how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

The question here is about minimum acceptable shutter speed, not sensor size. A too-slow shutter speed will have a greater resolution/detail limiting effect on a higher pixel density sensor than a lower one - which, unless you’re OK with not taking advantage of that state of the art lens and sensor you paid for, should absolutely figure into any rule of thumb calculation.

No it won't. The size of the blur resulting from the angular motion of the camera will be exactly the same in both cases. That same-size blur will be rendered using more pixels, but the blur itself will occupy EXACTLY the same portion of the image. And that means if both images are enlarged to the same pictures size, the blur will be neither more nor less perceptible by the viewer in either image. That is why neither lens quality nor pixel density matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of angular motion during the exposure, compared to the overall frame of the picture.

Dave

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping over how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

The question here is about minimum acceptable shutter speed, not sensor size. A too-slow shutter speed will have a greater resolution/detail limiting effect on a higher pixel density sensor than a lower one - which, unless you’re OK with not taking advantage of that state of the art lens and sensor you paid for, should absolutely figure into any rule of thumb calculation.

No it won't. The size of the blur resulting from the angular motion of the camera will be exactly the same in both cases. That same-size blur will be rendered using more pixels, but the blur itself will occupy EXACTLY the same portion of the image. And that means if both images are enlarged to the same pictures size, the blur will be neither more nor less perceptible by the viewer in either image. That is why neither lens quality nor pixel density matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of angular motion during the exposure, compared to the overall frame of the picture.

Dave

Yes, in your handheld slow shutter speed scenario, both images will suck equally but…

if you shot at higher shutter speed (which is what we are talking about here) where the motion blur would be significantly reduced, the premium lens/higher pixel density sensor would no longer be limited from reaching their full resolution potential, and the resulting image quality will NOT be the same. That’s the point, if you want to realize the image quality potential of your precision modern gear, a higher minimum handheld shutter speed calculation must be adopted.

If you’re happy with old lens/film results, by all means, stick with the old rule of thumb calculation.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping over how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

The question here is about minimum acceptable shutter speed, not sensor size. A too-slow shutter speed will have a greater resolution/detail limiting effect on a higher pixel density sensor than a lower one - which, unless you’re OK with not taking advantage of that state of the art lens and sensor you paid for, should absolutely figure into any rule of thumb calculation.

No it won't. The size of the blur resulting from the angular motion of the camera will be exactly the same in both cases. That same-size blur will be rendered using more pixels, but the blur itself will occupy EXACTLY the same portion of the image. And that means if both images are enlarged to the same pictures size, the blur will be neither more nor less perceptible by the viewer in either image. That is why neither lens quality nor pixel density matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of angular motion during the exposure, compared to the overall frame of the picture.

Dave

Yes, in your handheld slow shutter speed scenario, both images will suck equally but…

if you shot at higher shutter speed (which is what we are talking about here) where the motion blur would be significantly reduced, the premium lens/higher pixel density sensor would no longer be limited from reaching their full resolution potential, and the resulting image quality will NOT be the same. That’s the point, if you want to realize the image quality potential of your precision modern gear, a higher minimum handheld shutter speed calculation must be adopted.

If you’re happy with old lens/film results, by all means, stick with the old rule of thumb calculation.

The limiting factor is likely the resolution of the print.

For larger prints, in typical viewing situations, the limiting factor is likely the resolution of the human eye.

So if you want to realize the potential of high resolution cameras and top quality lenses, you need to pixel peep. In the vast majority of situations you won’t be able to see the difference in the final print.

You may ask what’s the point of those lenses/bodies. That’s an excellent question. There are situations where they make a difference, but they are not typical.

 

[J A C S]

The answer is "yes," but this is dpreview and this thread will max out.

 

[dsjtecserv]

...

Are you looking to quote old mathematical formulas for determining what shutter speed is required for acceptable looking handheld photos in the 1950s, or do you want to take reliably sharp photos in 2025? Go take some handheld shots with a sharp 50mm lens at 1/50” on a 60MP full frame camera and some more shots at 1/250”. Which look better? Is 1/50” fast enough to reliably render sharp detail at 60MP, or is faster consistently better? I think you will find that the old formula needs a update.

Take the same photo with a full frame 12 megapixel camera and a full frame 50 megapixel.

Now make 8x10 prints from both images (don't crop).

Both prints will be equally sharp. There is no sharpness advantage to higher resolution unless you blow it up to make a large image, and then view it from a close distance.

For many photographers, if something doesn't make a visible difference in the final image, then it isn't an important difference.

On the other hand, if you are concerned with pixel peeping over how the final image looks, then resolution is a factor.

The question here is about minimum acceptable shutter speed, not sensor size. A too-slow shutter speed will have a greater resolution/detail limiting effect on a higher pixel density sensor than a lower one - which, unless you’re OK with not taking advantage of that state of the art lens and sensor you paid for, should absolutely figure into any rule of thumb calculation.

No it won't. The size of the blur resulting from the angular motion of the camera will be exactly the same in both cases. That same-size blur will be rendered using more pixels, but the blur itself will occupy EXACTLY the same portion of the image. And that means if both images are enlarged to the same pictures size, the blur will be neither more nor less perceptible by the viewer in either image. That is why neither lens quality nor pixel density matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of angular motion during the exposure, compared to the overall frame of the picture.

Dave

Yes, in your handheld slow shutter speed scenario, both images will suck equally but…

if you shot at higher shutter speed (which is what we are talking about here) where the motion blur would be significantly reduced, the premium lens/higher pixel density sensor would no longer be limited from reaching their full resolution potential, and the resulting image quality will NOT be the same. That’s the point, if you want to realize the image quality potential of your precision modern gear, a higher minimum handheld shutter speed calculation must be adopted.

If you’re happy with old lens/film results, by all means, stick with the old rule of thumb calculation.

No Eric. If the same shutter speed is used in both cases, the degree of angular motion will be the same, the size of the blur recorded will the the same, and the perception of the blur in the print will be the same. There is no perceptible effect of a higher resolution sensor.

A higher shutter speed will not necessarily render a less-blurred image, regardless of the sensor resolution. In order for motion blur to be noticeable, it needs to exceed the threshold or perception in the final print. If the slower shutter speed does not allow the angular motion needed to produce this degree of blur, then there is no advantage to using the higher shutters speed. And regardless, the resolution of the sensor has no bearing on this anyway: The size of the motion-induced blur will be exactly the same, at the same shutter speed, regardless of the sensor resolution.

Once again, you are welcome to use a different formula, and a higher shutter speed if you want, but it will offer no advantage if the difference in blur is not perceptible, and the reduced light will tend to reduce image quality.

It is apparent that you aren't following this. I apologize if I and others have not been clear, but this really is the way things are, and it isn't hard to find documentation of it, or to simply test it yourself.

Dave

 

[tclune]

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.

I would just mention that one way to increase your likely success when you have to shoot at a lower speed than is comfortable for you is to use a short burst of four or five shots. At least for me, the first shot or two are usually the most blurry.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I asked myself whether I would teach the "rule" to a beginner with a modern camera and came to the conclusion that I wouldn't. It would just confuse him/her. There are just too many factors that affect the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake and, in these days of IBIS/IILIS/both and low light noise reduction in PP, he/she is unlikely to be in many situations where camera shake is a limiting factor. Motion blur is much more likely to set the minimum shutter speed. I would probably tell them to keep the shutter speed to, say, 1/100 or higher and teach them about shutter speeds and motion blur. In very low light shots they will have to learn by themselves just how low a shutter speed they personally can hand hold successfully with the equipment that they are using. It will probably be a very much slower shutter speed .than that given by the "rule".

I have almost exclusively shot with cameras and lenses with IS for around 10 years now and I can't remember in that time ever consciously thinking about the "rule". For me it just isn't relevant any more. I am almost always limited by motion blur rather than camera shake and, even if camera shake could be a problem, I know pretty well instinctively how to handle it including taking care over the shot, finding somewhere to rest against or using a tripod. I never calculate 1/focal length modified by IS, modified by my hand holding skills, modified by how much coffee I had for breakfast, etc.

Does anybody else do the calculations?

--
Chris R

 

[Bob]

SLRs vibrate more than mirrorless cameras, so you can get away with a slower shutter speed on a mirrorless - all else being equal.

Also, probability and statistics factor in to all this. In other words, 1/4 second might be too slow according to the “rule” but if you take 10 shots, one or two will likely be sharp enough.

Personally, I don’t bother with the rule. I just take a few test shots to see what works best.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Thanks to everyone who replied. For the most part, the replies confirmed my general thinking on the matter.

Generally speaking (and I know, "it depends" on some other variables):

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable). Obviously things like lens and body stabilization will mean i can shoot slower than this but at least my thinking was relatively correct on the matter. I'll have to do some experimenting (which I did this weekend, and so far, 1/focal length x crop factor seems to work quite well, or 2x focal length in equivalent FF terms also works.

(I'm just posting this reply so the thread doesn't max out or get overly long, etc).

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable).

That's ambiguous, and you could be applying the correction the wrong way. Just use the FF-equivalent focal length and don't make any correction to the shutter speed.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable).

That's ambiguous, and you could be applying the correction the wrong way. Just use the FF-equivalent focal length and don't make any correction to the shutter speed.

yes true. When i wrote that I was thinking APSC terms x 1.5, although for freezing action it wouldn't really mater if I added in the extra 1.5 stops I don't think (other than I'd be running a higher-than-necessarily ISO probably).

--
* 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]

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable).

That's ambiguous, and you could be applying the correction the wrong way. Just use the FF-equivalent focal length and don't make any correction to the shutter speed.

yes true. When i wrote that I was thinking APSC terms x 1.5, although for freezing action it wouldn't really mater if I added in the extra 1.5 stops I don't think (other than I'd be running a higher-than-necessarily ISO probably).

The tighter APS-C field of view will absolutely exaggerate the blur effect relative to FF with same focal length - not because of the smaller sensor, but because you will be looking closer at it. The 1.5X APS-C rule still applies.

 

[dsjtecserv]

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable).

That's ambiguous, and you could be applying the correction the wrong way. Just use the FF-equivalent focal length and don't make any correction to the shutter speed.

yes true. When i wrote that I was thinking APSC terms x 1.5, although for freezing action it wouldn't really mater if I added in the extra 1.5 stops I don't think (other than I'd be running a higher-than-necessarily ISO probably).

The crop factor matters for both camera motion and subject movement. The degree of movement that is acceptable is a function of the angle of view in both cases. So both the focal length and the sensor size that determined that angle of view need to be accounted for.

Dave

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Take the minimum shutter speed and multiply it by the crop factor (if applicable).

That's ambiguous, and you could be applying the correction the wrong way. Just use the FF-equivalent focal length and don't make any correction to the shutter speed.

yes true. When i wrote that I was thinking APSC terms x 1.5, although for freezing action it wouldn't really mater if I added in the extra 1.5 stops I don't think (other than I'd be running a higher-than-necessarily ISO probably).

The crop factor matters for both camera motion

yes

and subject movement.

no

The degree of movement that is acceptable is a function of the angle of view in both cases.

It is implicitly assumed that the correct lens is chosen so you have the same field of view. 1/60 second stops subject motion the same on any camera. Don't make it complicated.

So both the focal length and the sensor size that determined that angle of view need to be accounted for.