Posted by Joe Mathews on February 15, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Hi,
I know this is very basic question, but I am having difficulty with it. I think I'm overthinking this.
The old "set your shutter to the focal length for hand-held photos" rule has always worked well for me with my 70mm & 300mm lenses.
I have also had past luck with the long-time wisdom of 1/250 shutter for action, 1/500 to freeze motion.
But I'm not having good luck with my 500mm/f5 lens. (I can't afford f4.) Even with a monopod, I'm having a hard time getting totally frozen motion like I used to get with my 300mm.
Shouldn't 1/500 be enough to both freeze motion and avoid hand-blur? Or do I have to go to 1/1,000 shutter (500 for hand-held+500 for stop motion)?
If you have a 500mm lens, what shutter speeds do you keep in mind to use? For hand-held to freeze motion? With a monopod to freeze motion?
Thanks for your input on such a basic question,
Joe
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 15, 2009 at 10:27 PM
It depends on your subject, it's speed etc., and how hard the wind is blowing. I generally like 1/1,000 second myself. Why not simply bump up ISO and be done with it?
Kent in SD
Posted by Joe Mathews on February 15, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Kent in SD Quote:
Why not simply bump up ISO and be done with it?
First off, thanks for replying!
While I don't mind bumping up the ISO, sometimes high ISO can introduce enough noise to lessen sharpness. On my old camera I wouldn't trust the quality above ISO 500. My new one (with more MP) does well up to ISO 1250-1600. While 1/1000 is usually possible, I like to keep as small an Aperture as possible. I would still like to have f/7.1-8 available.
I think I will try your suggestion of just going with 1/1,000. So far 1/500 isn't getting it done.
Posted by Bryan Maltais on February 16, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Joe, what camera are you using? I'm sure you've considered this, but I'll state the obvious; if it's digital and NOT a newer generation, full-framed sensor then your 500mm is effectively a 750mm.
I've found that when panning along with a moving subject 1/500th on a 500mm lens works well, but can result in blurry images otherwise. Really depends a lot on how far away the subject is too.
I've also found that what results in blur on tele lenses more often than not is the extremely shallow depth of field, and the lens/camera's inability to accurately focus on the desired slice of the image.
Posted by Joe Mathews on February 16, 2009 at 1:03 AM
It is a newer camera, Nikon D90. The nearest focusing distance on the lens it about 10 feet. Now that you mention it, extremely shallow depth of field might be part of the problem! It certainly played a part in my Cedar Waxwing photo in the Avian Gallery. You might be on to something there. I did notice the problem more in closer photos.
I guess an easier way to ask my original question is, how much shutter speed can I save by using my monopod vs. handheld on a 500mm lens? Or if I'm at 1/1,000 or 1/1250 already, is the bother of a monopor worth it?
The D90 has a DX format sensor which makes your 500mm lens the equivalent of a 750 or more on a 35mm film camera.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I've never had good luck with a monopod, but obviously sports photographers do. On my D80 I was never afraid to shoot at ISO 800, and with the D300 I'm often using ISO 1600, depending on subject. The D90 should perform about the same. At any rate, a higher ISO shot will probably be better than a slightly blurry 1/500 shot.
Kent in SD
Posted by Steve Foss on February 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM
I guess an easier way to ask my original question is, how much shutter speed can I save by using my monopod vs. handheld on a 500mm lens? Or if I'm at 1/1,000 or 1/1250 already, is the bother of a monopor worth it?
Joe, shooting styles differ, but I'll give an emphatic YES to the monopod over handheld with either an IS/VR or non IS/VR supertele lens for nature work. My go-to lens is Canon's 400 f5.6L (it's not image stabilized), and the number of keepers dramatically increases with a monopod, particularly when I'm stopped down or when light is poor. Even just the monopod is an improvement, but since I do so much shooting in the woods, I can generally find a tree or rock to help me further brace the monopod. You can develop a strong steadying technique with your own legs/arms/body too, for when you're out in open areas.
I have a monopod strapped on my telephoto all the time when I'm bombing around. I use a Manfrotto 480B, which is overkill for my light 400 (plenty sturdy for when I rent/use the really big glass.) I put a Manfrotto 486RC2 ballhead on it. Technically, you don't need a head on a monopod, but there are situations I've found it useful, and it swaps out between my tripod and monopod nicely. The ballhead has a quick-release plate so I can easily dump the monopod if I have to suddenly do bird-in-flight or track moving animals.
Anything that can be done to remove hand shake is a good thing. If you adopt a sturdy monpod and take some time to master the learning curve (it's not a very steep one), you'll find yourself able to keep your iso lower, still stop down and achieve sharper images, always depending on subject movement as well. Of course, a tripod is even better, and I always have one with me, but the monopod is a great compromise, offering some of the stabilization of a tripod with better portability.
Discussion
8 repliesI know this is very basic question, but I am having difficulty with it. I think I'm overthinking this.
The old "set your shutter to the focal length for hand-held photos" rule has always worked well for me with my 70mm & 300mm lenses.
I have also had past luck with the long-time wisdom of 1/250 shutter for action, 1/500 to freeze motion.
But I'm not having good luck with my 500mm/f5 lens. (I can't afford f4.) Even with a monopod, I'm having a hard time getting totally frozen motion like I used to get with my 300mm.
Shouldn't 1/500 be enough to both freeze motion and avoid hand-blur? Or do I have to go to 1/1,000 shutter (500 for hand-held+500 for stop motion)?
If you have a 500mm lens, what shutter speeds do you keep in mind to use? For hand-held to freeze motion? With a monopod to freeze motion?
Thanks for your input on such a basic question,
Joe
Kent in SD
Why not simply bump up ISO and be done with it?
First off, thanks for replying!
While I don't mind bumping up the ISO, sometimes high ISO can introduce enough noise to lessen sharpness. On my old camera I wouldn't trust the quality above ISO 500. My new one (with more MP) does well up to ISO 1250-1600. While 1/1000 is usually possible, I like to keep as small an Aperture as possible. I would still like to have f/7.1-8 available.
I think I will try your suggestion of just going with 1/1,000. So far 1/500 isn't getting it done.
I've found that when panning along with a moving subject 1/500th on a 500mm lens works well, but can result in blurry images otherwise. Really depends a lot on how far away the subject is too.
I've also found that what results in blur on tele lenses more often than not is the extremely shallow depth of field, and the lens/camera's inability to accurately focus on the desired slice of the image.
I guess an easier way to ask my original question is, how much shutter speed can I save by using my monopod vs. handheld on a 500mm lens? Or if I'm at 1/1,000 or 1/1250 already, is the bother of a monopor worth it?
Kent in SD
Joe, shooting styles differ, but I'll give an emphatic YES to the monopod over handheld with either an IS/VR or non IS/VR supertele lens for nature work. My go-to lens is Canon's 400 f5.6L (it's not image stabilized), and the number of keepers dramatically increases with a monopod, particularly when I'm stopped down or when light is poor. Even just the monopod is an improvement, but since I do so much shooting in the woods, I can generally find a tree or rock to help me further brace the monopod. You can develop a strong steadying technique with your own legs/arms/body too, for when you're out in open areas.
I have a monopod strapped on my telephoto all the time when I'm bombing around. I use a Manfrotto 480B, which is overkill for my light 400 (plenty sturdy for when I rent/use the really big glass.) I put a Manfrotto 486RC2 ballhead on it. Technically, you don't need a head on a monopod, but there are situations I've found it useful, and it swaps out between my tripod and monopod nicely. The ballhead has a quick-release plate so I can easily dump the monopod if I have to suddenly do bird-in-flight or track moving animals.
Anything that can be done to remove hand shake is a good thing. If you adopt a sturdy monpod and take some time to master the learning curve (it's not a very steep one), you'll find yourself able to keep your iso lower, still stop down and achieve sharper images, always depending on subject movement as well. Of course, a tripod is even better, and I always have one with me, but the monopod is a great compromise, offering some of the stabilization of a tripod with better portability.