Loss of sharpness in a picture is caused 80% by physical factors, and 20% by a mixture of bad aperture and ISO.
You think you need a "steady hand", but it is more complicated:
* Your muscles need training to keep stable when holding the camera in odd positions.
* The weight of the camera needs to rest correctly on the left hand. Consider using your wrist, or the sniper position.
* The fingers of the right hand need to stabilize the camera house while handling the shutter button.
* The shutter button must be pressed with as little energy transfer as possible.
* Longer lenses must be stabilized by resting correctly on the fingers, which don't have to be 100% still but should not move the lens.
* You need to skillfully rest the face against different parts of the camera while using the viewfinder to create stabilization.
Once these steps have been completed, consider using quiet shutter release to reduce internal shaking. It'll enable you to hold the mirror up until a bit after the shutter is down. My own tests show that there is a difference in the outcome compared to a regular shutter release. Of course, this does not work with "rapid fire" unless your camera has a quiet rapid fire feature. Not all do.
Be like a turtoise.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 768 Image Height 576
A second topic in terms of sharpness: You really do not need to worry about slow shutter speeds. It is not necessary to match the minimum shutter speed to the focal length of your lens.
At 1/15th of a second, the shutter opens and closes so fast that you will only slightly be able to hear the opening and closing sound. It is so fast that your hands, assuming they do the stuff in the steps above, will not move fast enough to really affect the photo sharpness. This goes regardless of your lens speed.
At 1/30, the shutter moves so fast that the opening and closing sounds practically sound like one sound. At all faster speeds, the two sounds get closer and closer. At 1/60 or 1/125, you'll not be able to distinguish anything whatsoever.
Again, this goes no matter the lens speed. It's not a shutter problem if you get motion blur in the photo. It's how you handle the camera. As I have seen in countless real-life cases, this lack of properly handling the camera can actually result in the same kind of motion blur even at fast shutter speeds like 1/250 or 1/500! So, unless there's people in your photo, you can do so much more by becoming a proper slow-shutter hand held photographer because you'll be able to get around without lugging your shitty tripod around (unless you want long exposures and astrophotography, but street night photography handheld is no problem whatsoever).
>>2767004
When cameras first started having rear screens and no view finders I thought it was an ifiotic idea. I can't keep my phone steady at arms length to take a photo.
good info, OP
> mfw when I only use wlf
>>2767004
>that feel when my camera's shutter speeds go from 1/45 to 1/60, but no in between, and I always use a 50mm.
>>2767013
Try hand-holding a 500mm lens at anything under 1/250 and see if you can get a sharp shot.
>>2767147
I'll get back to you once I get such a lens :-) would love to have a go at it. But even if there'd be a slight exception once you reach semi-ridiculous lengths, you're still not matching the minimum shutter speed to the focal length of the lens. 250 is only half of 500.
>>2767147
https://photographylife.com/tips-on-photographing-hand-held-with-telephoto-lenses
>NIKON D800 + TAMRON 150-600mm f/5-6.3 @ 600mm, ISO 6400, 1/15, f/6.3
>600mm
>1/15
>hand held
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer THOMAS STIRR Maximum Lens Aperture f/6.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1091 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 600 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1473 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:04:21 20:56:13 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 6400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 2.51 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 600.00 mm Comment ASCII Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1473 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2767167
And you got it on the first try? And you weren't leaning on anything? And you weren't using a monopod?
>NIKON D800 + TAMRON 150-600mm f/5-6.3 @ 600mm, ISO 6400, 1/80, f/6.3
>600mm
>1/80
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer THOMAS STIRR Maximum Lens Aperture f/6.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1091 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 600 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1423 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:04:21 20:55:41 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 6400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 6.68 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 600.00 mm Comment ASCII Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1423 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2767169
They're not my photos. They are from the link above, where an explanation is given of how to hand hold longer telephoto lenses :D
>>2767163
>once you reach semi-ridiculous lengths
There's nothing ridiculous or semi-ridiculous about 500mm...and with the fact that at telephoto focal lengths you need a much greater difference in focal lengths for there to be an effective difference in the resulting images (e.g. there's a world of difference between a 10mm and a 14mm, but there's basically no discernable difference between a 100mm and 104mm) 450mm is pretty much 500mm for terms of this discussion.
Hell, on a 1.5 crop, a 300mm is 450mm FoV, and when we're talking about motion blurring, this is one time when FoV equivilency is equal.
Also, what you say about shutter speeds is erroneous because most of those movements are caused by spasming of fine motor muscles. Yes, you can still have motion in faster shutter speeds, but because the spasming tends to be fairly periodic, when you have the shutter open for longer you're increasing the odds of those spasms intersecting with the time the shutter is open.
>>2767147
I've done it a few times with a 500/4, but just messing around and I have no clue if I still have the photos. It'd be easier with the Tamron or a Bigma since they're so much smaller and lighter than the f/4.
I've always wanted to come up with a good system for rigging a supertele with a sling, instead of a normal strap. (i.e. one end of the strap is on the body and the other is out at the end of the lens, instead of both attaching to the lens near the mount.) There are a lot of techniques for stabilizing a rifle using a sling, and I think they'd apply well to photography if you could set it up right.
>>2767172
Those spasms are only a small part. That is implied in my opening post. You need a good position that'll reduce those, but unless you have sclerosis then most positions will do and pressing the shutter button wrong will be an even bigger problem. Also, slower shutter speeds really aren't slow.
>>2767175
>There are a lot of techniques for stabilizing a rifle using a sling, and I think they'd apply well to photography if you could set it up right.
This sounds really interesting.
>>2767176
>That is implied in my opening post. You need a good position that'll reduce those,
The thing is, for the most part there's no real reduction of them. The only kind that you can sorta reduce are the ones that are brought on by fatigue and that's honestly a matter of working the muscles until they're strengthened.
I'm not saying that what you're talking about with regards to bracing is wrong because it's fairly on point (general idea is always use bones to support as much as possible, not muscles) -- just that there's some of that shakiness for most people that will never go away.
As for them being a "small part" small is all it takes to ruin a shot, especially at longer focal lengths. It's like how it's not that big of a deal for a baseball pitcher to throw the ball one degree away from the center of the catcher, but if NASA is off by one degree, they miss planets by thousands of miles.
>>2767169
That guy did another article: https://photographylife.com/shooting-hand-held-with-the-sigma-150-600mm-sport
Loads of photos taken hand held with the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM/S superzoom (6.3 lbs / 2.86 kg).
Shutter speeds of the photos range from 1/15 to 1/320.
Here's one taken at 1/50s and 600mm focal length. Seems he's taking test photos at the same zoo or animal park or something.
Sorting out the physical stuff to maximize sharpness really wins. Huge difference, difficult to master. Matching the shutter to the focal length is not as important as most people insist it is.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer THOMAS STIRR Maximum Lens Aperture f/6.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1015 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 600 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:02:24 22:25:53 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 6400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 1/3 EV Subject Distance 4.47 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 600.00 mm Comment ASCII Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1366 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
http://gizmodo.com/5887389/army-officer-teaches-you-how-to-shoot-your-dslr-like-a-rifle
>>2767182
It's definitely true it matters more at longer focal lengths, but I'm seeing lots of good examples of people taking really good shots at slow shutter speeds and, say, 600mm like the examples I've been posting here. That tells me that something more than the conventional wisdom DEFINITELY is possible. Unfortunately, my longest lens right now is 200mm, so I definitely can't wait for the day I'll have my own 500 or 600mm lens to experiment with myself. Also, good analogy :)
>>2767004
>sharpness
>caring about it
lmaoing at your life
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 0 dpi Vertical Resolution 0 dpi Image Created 2010:03:31 15:37:30 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 251 Image Height 251
>>2767187
Oh, better accuracy is definitely always a goal, and you're right, the conventions err more toward the general population. Working stabilizer muscles and putting loads on fine control muscles is one of the better ways to start getting rid of things like tremors. Add into that dropping stuff like caffeine and nicotine (and whatever other uppers you might be taking)...I think I'm not so much disagreeing with you as saying that it's not complete. There needs to be an aspect of actually practicing holding the camera in various ways to work the muscles necessary because unfortunately, you can't take them entirely out of the equation.
>>2767193
I'd agree with that :)
>>2767191
We're not all Daido Moriyama, friend. Some of us see sharpness as an important part of our photos. It gives them more visual depth.
>>2767191
I suppose at amateur/enthusiast level sharpness might still be a bourgeois concept but in this day and age if you hand an out of focus image to a client your photography career won't last long
>>2767004
As others have mentioned target shooting techniques help.
One important thing is breathing and oxygenation of the muscles to prevent spasms. When you hold your breath you have about 3 seconds before spasms start.
In shooting you tou aim at the target. As you are breathing in and out the sight will rise and fall as you breath. Aim where you are half breathed out. Then take two or three breaths and gently hold you breath halfway through exhaling. The sight should rest on the target. You then have about 3 seconds to fine tune and pull the trigger/shutter.
I've tried this at 300mm on a crop (450mm). Can't remember how low I got the shutter speed but it helps a lot.
>>2767177
Not him, but I do use the "hasty sling" method pretty frequently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HtaLUbTwZM
>>2767004
Is that doggo dead?
sharpness is a shibboleth of photography psuedoscience
>>2767167
How can i also get my doctor to prescribe me benzos for photography?
>>2768990
That depends what you mean by "sharpness". If you mean "the ability to clearly see what is in the photo", then you'll not find much that is more important.
That's like saying "legibility is totally overrated in typography".
Makes no sense, logically. None at all.
>>2768990
>psuedoscience
You don't know what that word means.
>>2770566
Once a photo is "sharp enough" (pretty much every lens available right now) added sharpness at 100% is masturbation, and provides no benefit to the image whatsoever. For very very few applications (SOME architecture, and landscape work) it can benefit, and if you're making enormous prints and people will be up on it, MAYBE.
In reality, it's just an easy way to think about improving your photography. It's easier to say "I need a sharper lens" than it is to say "I need to find a subject someone might actually care about". If all your photo has to offer is fine detail, you are doing it wrong. People should be excited about the content of your photo. About the light, or the mood, or the neat thing you are showing them. A photo with great content, people aren't going to care if it was shot with a nifty fifty or an otus. Even the "a good photo can always be a better photo with more sharpness" thing is untrue, because a good photo doesn't let people pay attention to the sharpness.
>>2770569
Found the guy shooting blurry low IQ shit images with a deprecated sensor.
>>2770569
>A photo with great content, people aren't going to care if it was shot with a nifty fifty or an otus
This is true
>because a good photo doesn't let people pay attention to the sharpness
This is bollocks. Most people, even those that don't use cameras, can tell when a picture is out of focus and it does affect their judgement. They'll say things like "nice picture, but why is it so fuzzy"
>>2771900
We're not talking about out of focus photos here, though.
I'm a different anon from >>2770569, but totally on the same page. Soft lenses are pretty much a thing of the past in this day and age, excepting maybe some junk off-brand stuff. You're talking tiny, tiny differences between the lenses people argue about, ones you'll only be able to see in 24"x36" prints or when zooming in on the full-res photo in Lightroom.
Only a few of us on /p/ even own real photo printers, and the tiny minority here that make truly large prints mostly shoot MF or LF. Despite that, this board, and many others, are overflowing with people who obsess over MTF charts and DxO scores, despite the fact that they'll never publish their photos in a format where you can tell the difference between a 40 point lens and a 50 point lens or whatever.
Amateur photographers tend to glorify this mythical ideal of sharpness in a way that really confuses me, and to a degree that I never encountered among other working photogs when I was a pro. Personally, I know that pretty much any modern lens that I buy for my Nikon is going to be more than sharp enough to hold up when I put the photos through my 13"x19" printer, and I care way more about build quality, autofocus speed and accuracy, and lens ergonomics.
>>2767183
>150mm
>1/15s
>hand held
I don't think so. Not unless he's dead.
>>2767183
I already asked it weeks ago but I forgot. Why should I match focal lenght and shutter?
>>2773549
OP here.
My point is that you shouldn't. Everyone seem to say you should, because "micro-stutter of hands" and such. They basically say that if you have a 200mm lens, nothing below 1/200 will give you a sharp photo. But that's wrong.
>>2773635
It's not a rule, it's a guideline for most people based on what most people are more or less capable of in the heat of the moment, and for many many people, it holds true. For me, it's even faster, than 1/focal length because I don't hold my camera steady when I shoot. I move all over and wiggle and shift to get the right perspective and to not miss the timing of my shot. I know that, and I account for it, and my photos look fine because of it.
There's something to be said for knowing that your way works for you, and understanding that it might not work for other people, and therefore not starting a thread about technique telling people that they're wrong, simply because you do it a different way.
>>2773635
What I meant is if there is a scientific reason behind the 1/focal lenght = shutter speed or just a cool way to explain a nice coincidence that kinda works fine.
>>2773784
It's just a guideline for what worst best for most people. Nothing mathematical about it, it just works out that way.
>>2773784
Yeah, I've never seen a scientific explanation of it. It's just a "best practice" kind of thing that everyone refers to.
>Testing a neecore 70-200 VR
>1/50 @ 200mm
>Goddamn this VR is sweet
>Turns out VR isn't on
Holy fuck I am elite.
>>2773882
>not hand holding a 70-300 VR at 300 on crop down to 1/4 second with VR
get on my level
>it took a few tries, but i could get some sharp ones
