Affect camera/lens weight on camera shake.

I have no problems handholding my 40D with 70-200/2.8 but I've heard that some complain that a heavy lens contributes to the camera shake. I admit that I have big hands and in my previos life I had to handle very heavy stuff 8 hour a day but still my impression was that the heavier the lens/camera is the more stable is as long as you can lift it. If one's hands are shaky he still cannot move the lens from a stable position as easy as a lighter lens such as 50-250.

And the point of this thread would be...?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11786267
And the point of this thread would be...?

Didn't your mom teach you if you have nothing to say... well you know the drill.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11786267
And the point of this thread would be...?

Easy, if it's light you're gonna shake it more. If it's heavy it's easier to hold it steady aslong as you can lift it. Stability = weight.

Refresh Image wrote in post #11786195
I have no problems handholding my 40D with 70-200/2.8 but I've heard that some complain that a heavy lens contributes to the camera shake. I admit that I have big hands and in my previos life I had to handle very heavy stuff 8 hour a day but still my impression was that the heavier the lens/camera is the more stable is as long as you can lift it. If one's hands are shaky he still cannot move the lens from a stable position as easy as a lighter lens such as 50-250.

So, I'd say it's "whatever works for you". I presume you have at least one other lens beyond the 70-200 and I'd guess it's probably lighter. Each of us has a different "balance". Yes there's something to the stability of "bulk", but there's also those for whom the weight is a negative factor. Not so much about the jittery stuff but about being able to hold the gear steady.

So, whatever you shoot with you just get a feel for the right technique.

Two opposing effects are in play. The outcome depends on the particular circumstances.

The first is the physical property of matter called momentum (often going by the name of 'inertia').
The more massive an object, the more force is required to accelerate it, that is, to change its velocity.

The second is the variable ability of individuals to resist muscle fatigue and tremor.

For any individual, under identical conditions of alertness, fitness, coffee intake () etc, there will be some mass that can be held still for the greatest period of time in any given posture.

Hence Tony's "whatever works for you".

Michel.K wrote in post #11786337
Easy, if it's light you're gonna shake it more. If it's heavy it's easier to hold it steady aslong as you can lift it. Stability = weight.

This is also my findings.

Michel.K wrote in post #11786337
Easy, if it's light you're gonna shake it more. If it's heavy it's easier to hold it steady aslong as you can lift it. Stability = weight.

I believe this theory as well. It's easy to get a steadier shot with heavier equipment.

I think so too.

Michel.K wrote in post #11786337
Easy, if it's light you're gonna shake it more. If it's heavy it's easier to hold it steady aslong as you can lift it. Stability = weight.

Refresh Image wrote in post #11786290
Didn't your mom teach you if you have nothing to say... well you know the drill.

Umm...thanks, but I actually was wondering what the point of this thread was because I really didn't know where you were going with it...it's funny that you broke your own rule there...

Michel.K wrote in post #11786337
Easy, if it's light you're gonna shake it more. If it's heavy it's easier to hold it steady aslong as you can lift it. Stability = weight.

No. Weight = your hands/arms tire easier, therefore you will shake sooner.

I can handhold a P&S at 1 sec shutter speed and get great results...I can't do that with a 1D + 70-200 2.8 IS.

WRONG FOR ME...

I use a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens because I consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) is too heavy. This is most often true after a long day of shooting when my muscles are tired hand holding the bigger lens.

I can feel the difference when I use my 300mm f/4L IS lens for a long day. My shots at the beginning of the shoot are sharper at the end of the day; and this lens is a TAD lighter then the 70-200mm f/2.8L siblings.

I solve this problem with a monopod which is an integral part of my 300mm f/4L IS kit.

But, I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens all day without fatigue and without shake. Using this lens, I can shoot all day down to 1/60 second and occasionally even 1/30 second with good results.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11787522
Umm...thanks, but I actually was wondering what the point of this thread was because I really didn't know where you were going with it...it's funny that you broke your own rule there...

No. Weight = your hands/arms tire easier, therefore you will shake sooner.

I can handhold a P&S at 1 sec shutter speed and get great results...I can't do that with a 1D + 70-200 2.8 IS.

Well, if it's so heavy that you will get tired by holding it, then you definately need a tripod anyways.

More weight will always be less prone to move as twitchy as something lighter than it.
However, it's all about the guy who holds the gear in relative to the strength one has that's gonna decide what's light or heavy.

Light gear in my mind is when the gear easily absorbs finger/handshakiness to the body/lens. Now if you have enough weight to counter that, then it's always gonna be more stable with more weight in correspondans to a lightweight gear. Try to twitch/jerk something fast back and forth that is light, now do the same with something that is heavier, which is easier to move around in a jerky motion and which gives a "smoother motion"?


Do you have flash enabled on that p&s with 1sec shutter? If so, that explains it.. just thinking, as p&s cameras usually covers with the flash 99% of the time hehe.

xarqi wrote in post #11786579
Two opposing effects are in play. The outcome depends on the particular circumstances.

The first is the physical property of matter called momentum (often going by the name of 'inertia').
The more massive an object, the more force is required to accelerate it, that is, to change its velocity.

The second is the variable ability of individuals to resist muscle fatigue and tremor.

For any individual, under identical conditions of alertness, fitness, coffee intake () etc, there will be some mass that can be held still for the greatest period of time in any given posture.

Hence Tony's "whatever works for you".

Very well explained. Reminds me of my science classes.

I also find that the heavier lenses are easiest to steady due to the exact language that Xarqi mentions in his post.
I will also agree that the weight can possibly lead to some fatique, shortening the length of possible time to properly hold a larger lens at the end of a long day. So, one has to plan those shots to come off as quickly as is necessary.

For those who are not able to hold the heavier lens, than they are mostly going to purchase lighter lens....how hard is this to figure???

Michel.K wrote in post #11787990
Well, if it's so heavy that you will get tired by holding it, then you definately need a tripod anyways.

More weight will always be less prone to move as twitchy as something lighter than it.
However, it's all about the guy who holds the gear in relative to the strength one has that's gonna decide what's light or heavy.

Light gear in my mind is when the gear easily absorbs finger/handshakiness to the body/lens. Now if you have enough weight to counter that, then it's always gonna be more stable with more weight in correspondans to a lightweight gear. Try to twitch/jerk something fast back and forth that is light, now do the same with something that is heavier, which is easier to move around in a jerky motion and which gives a "smoother motion"?


Do you have flash enabled on that p&s with 1sec shutter? If so, that explains it.. just thinking, as p&s cameras usually covers with the flash 99% of the time hehe.

No flash enabled on the P&S.

You seem to take fatigue out of the equation. A heavy camera/lens combination will lead to "jelly arms" a lot sooner than a light combination, sometimes, in seconds (take an old Bigma and handhold it for a minute and see if you get sharper pictures even at 200, than you do with a 70-200 f4L non-IS).

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11788067
No flash enabled on the P&S.

You seem to take fatigue out of the equation. A heavy camera/lens combination will lead to "jelly arms" a lot sooner than a light combination, sometimes, in seconds (take an old Bigma and handhold it for a minute and see if you get sharper pictures even at 200, than you do with a 70-200 f4L non-IS).

No, i did not take that out of equation. Hence my wording of strength and relative to what is heavy or light for the one who is holding it. Your example of jelly arms wouldn't really affect me as i'm very fit and doesn't get tired that soon. Hence it's all about what's heavy(this includes strength and fatigue) for oneself.

Though now i see xarqi already explained what i was trying to explain, didn't see the post until now!

Oh well, 1sec exposure or not, that was not the point here, as it's extremely rare to be able to handhold 1sec exposure shots and get them to be nice is one of a million if not more rare than that. So we don't need to add that into this discussion really.

It's easier to compare 1/100sec exposures as that is what almost everyone should be able to handhold and try this out by themselves as that will most definately yield results for one to actually compare.


However, i just came to think of something that may be easier for people who can't understand the thought behind that more weight can give more stability. this is just an example..
Take a very light pole that is like 3-4 foot long, balance it on your finger, move your body so the pole goes out of balance slightly and try to adjust the balance so it won't fall. Now do the same with a heavier pole, which is easier to keep stable?

Though many seems to already understand the basics behind the OP's idea, but i'm willing to try to make you understand why.