70/200 2.8 IS...Hand Held??

How do you figure what the slowest hand-held time? Is it 1/logest focal length? So It would be 1/200 for the 70-200 2.8 IS?? That seems a little slow to me???

If you have a 30D, which your username suggests then

70mm x 1.6 = 112
200mm x 1.6 = 320

With IS on it will help further.

rammy wrote in post #5535574
If you have a 30D, which your username suggests then

70mm x 1.6 = 112
200mm x 1.6 = 320

With IS on it will help further.

Is this true? Do you really have to add in the x1.6? I mean a 200mm lens on a 1.6 sensor is NOT a 320mm lens. The only thing that happens is that the sensor only sees the same field of view (FOV) as a 320mm lens. So it is NOT magnifying the image the same as a 320mm. And camera shake only becomes more amplified when an image is more magnified, which in this case it is NOT. A 200mm lens on a 1.6 sensor camera is still a 200mm lens. Of course I could be missing something here, so if I am let me know.

With IS on I have successfully shot down as low a 1/30 shutter on my 70-200 IS.

Ron you should take a picture of distant object with 5d and then with 20d and see if the image is not maginifed or not.

bobbyz wrote in post #5535888
Ron you should take a picture of distant object with 5d and then with 20d and see if the image is not maginifed or not.

Actually I have an old D60, which is a 1.6 factor sensor and, no, the image is NOT magnified, it is cropped. I could emulate a 1.6 factor sensor on my 5D by taking a picture and then crop the image to only include what the 1.6 sensor would see.

A 1.6 sensor seems like a magnification because we see less field of view, which is what longer focal length lenses do. But in this case it sees narrower because the sensor is smaller, not because it is more magnification.

This is a subject I have been curious about so i am not saying i am right or wrong, just that I would like to understand it. So far I don't understand how given the exact same focal length you can get more actual magnification just because the sensor is smaller.

Dermit wrote in post #5535925
Actually I have an old D60, which is a 1.6 factor sensor and, no, the image is NOT magnified, it is cropped. I could emulate a 1.6 factor sensor on my 5D by taking a picture and then crop the image to only include what the 1.6 sensor would see.

A 1.6 sensor seems like a magnification because we see less field of view, which is what longer focal length lenses do. But in this case it sees narrower because the sensor is smaller, not because it is more magnification.

Technically it is a Crop but the # of pixels in a crop body almost makes it seem like you took a shot @ 20mm (1.6x Crop) and one at 32mm (5D).

I don't know how accurate that assumption will be but, @ 200 you'll be cropping or seeing 10MP of 320mm, thus the likelyhood of camera shake will go up needing a faster shutter speed.

I guess I can illustrate better with my 40D's live view. When I zoom in 10x I notice how bad my handheld shake is. It definately appears less @ 24mm than 70mm

pixelharmony wrote in post #5535965
Technically it is a Crop but the # of pixels in a crop body almost makes it seem like you took a shot @ 20mm (1.6x Crop) and one at 32mm (5D).

I don't know how accurate that assumption will be but, @ 200 you'll be cropping or seeing 10MP of 320mm, thus the likelyhood of camera shake will go up needing a faster shutter speed.

I guess I can illustrate better with my 40D's live view. When I zoom in 10x I notice how bad my handheld shake is. It definately appears less @ 24mm than 70mm

Sorry, I am still not there. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but it's not playing well with the issue. One thing i agree on is the closer pixels are together the more critical camera shake becomes. But that is a resolution issue and the same would be true for a 1.6 or a full size sensor. If both had identical pixel pitch the focal length and crop factor still would not matter (in my head) in regards to hand holding the camera and shutter speed. The exact same image transmits through the lens and falls on the focal plane of the camera. It's just that the 1.6 sensor is only capturing a smaller center portion of that projected image. True? Or am i way off base, or just not getting it?

If you go by the popular rule of thumb formula for HAND HOLDING:
1/(Focal Length x crop factor)

70mm : 1/(70 x 1.6) = 1/112
200mm : 1(200 x 1.6) = 1/320

The IS on the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a 3 stop IS system. This means you can theoretically HAND HOLD it with shutter speeds 3 stops slower than "normal".

So for the above example:

70mm : 1/112 -> 1/14
200mm : 1/320-> 1/40

Quite obviously at those speeds, it won't help you stop the action.

Matt30D wrote in post #5535311
How do you figure what the slowest hand-held time? Is it 1/logest focal length? So It would be 1/200 for the 70-200 2.8 IS?? That seems a little slow to me???

The crop factor does effect the slowest shutter speed, as although your not actually magnifying the image it has the apparent effect of magnifying and therefore shake is more pronounced.
I've managed 1/2sec at 70mm and 1/6sec at 200mm with mine, pretty awesome lens if you ask me!

1/20sec at 400mm.

sm1rf wrote in post #5536073
The crop factor does effect the slowest shutter speed, as although your not actually magnifying the image it has the apparent effect of magnifying and therefore shake is more pronounced.
I've managed 1/2sec at 70mm and 1/6sec at 200mm with mine, pretty awesome lens if you ask me!

OK, so what you are saying is if I took two cameras, one a full frame and one a 1.6 with indentical pixel pitch and mounted them on machines that emulated identical in-sync slight camera shake as would be experienced by someone hand holding a camera and put them side by side and shot both at exactly the same time at a subject the same distance away and I took the full frame image and cropped it to the same FOV as the 1.6 that the 1.6 image would present more blur? I really don't get it. But then again I've been slow to grasp many things, but when i do I hold on tight.

By the way, beautiful pic Pete. 1/20? wow.

1/FL x 1.6 formula is basically correct.....

rammy wrote in post #5535574
If you have a 30D, which your username suggests then

70mm x 1.6 = 112
200mm x 1.6 = 320

With IS on it will help further.

First off; the 1/focal length rule is just a rough guide from which you can start to learn your capability of hand-holding any focal length lens. There are many variable factors which must be considered when interpreting the 1/FL rule.

These are just a few of the variables to consider:

1. Physical capability of the photographer - I could hold a camera a lot steadier at 30 years old than I can in my 60's. Heck, I could shoot a pistol a lot better then also.

2. Size and weight of the camera/lens combination. Also whether the photographer is holding other equipment such as a camera bag full of gear while shooting.

3. Environment - wind and other physical elements including whether the photographer is standing on even ground or is balancing precariously. Rocking boats, obviously throw the 1/FL formula into the water.

4. Photographer's condition - this could be included in the "physical capability" category but is really different. Any photographer's capability for a steady hand hold will depend on whether the photographer is tired or refreshed. It will also vary if the photographer has been running to the spot where the photos will be taken and whether the photographer has adrenaline pumping through his or her body. Smoking, drugs (hopefully only prescription drugs), and alcohol intake all will impact the ability to attain a steady hand hold.

5. The hand-holding technique of the photographer will influence the final product to a great degree.

6. Size of the original image and requirement for cropping the image.

How was the 1/FL developed? First of all, it is predicated on the ability to print an 8x10 print from the original image which will be "acceptably sharp" when viewed at arm's length. "Acceptably sharp" is a subjective determination at best but is dependent on the size of the original.

Obviously, a smaller original will need to be enlarged more than a larger original. With every degree of enlargement, there is loss of sharpness. Since a 1.6x crop image is 22.5mm x 15mm and a full-frame image is 36mm x 24mm; the 1.6x crop will need to be enlarged to a greater degree than will the full-frame image.

The requirement for a greater degree of enlargement also requires a greater degree of sharpness - hence the formula 1/FL x 1.6.

Again please remember that this is only a starting point, not something carved in granite.

Dermit wrote in post #5536147
OK, so what you are saying is if I took two cameras, one a full frame and one a 1.6 with indentical pixel pitch and mounted them on machines that emulated identical in-sync slight camera shake as would be experienced by someone hand holding a camera and put them side by side and shot both at exactly the same time at a subject the same distance away and I took the full frame image and cropped it to the same FOV as the 1.6 that the 1.6 image would present more blur? I really don't get it. But then again I've been slow to grasp many things, but when i do I hold on tight.

By the way, beautiful pic Pete. 1/20? wow.

In short NO, because both display the same amount of shake, but since the image you look at in the 5D normally isn't cropped then you don't normally see the shake. So since your images from a crop camera are already cropped you always see the cropped effect, if your with me. Neither is more likely to show shake it's just you're more likely to see it in a crop body as the image is always cropped, unlike a 5D which is only cropped when you want too. Thats the way i see it anyway!

RPCrowe wrote in post #5536301
Obviously, a smaller original will need to be enlarged more than a larger original. With every degree of enlargement, there is loss of sharpness. Since a 1.6x crop image is 22.5mm x 15mm and a full-frame image is 36mm x 24mm; the 1.6x crop will need to be enlarged to a greater degree than will the full-frame image.

The requirement for a greater degree of enlargement also requires a greater degree of sharpness - hence the formula 1/FL x 1.6.

Ah, I think I am starting to see the disconnect here and it's looking like everyone's right. So if I use a full size sensor and I want to capture the same FOV as a 1.6 then i have to get close to the subject to fill more of the frame. At that point where the subject is occupying the same FOV then, yes, the smaller sensor will have to be magnified more to print it the same size as the full frame. So I can see where both arguments can be made. It's very dependant on subject to camera distance, possibly resolution of the sensor/pixel pitch and whether or not you capture the same FOV up front in both. So in my example of shooting at the same distance and all else being identical expcept for sensor size the shutter speed rule should be the same, yes? But shooting at a different distance the get the same FOV it becomes a factor for a difference.

Ok, if I get closer to a subject isn't it more proned to motion blur than if I was further away? Thinking about driving down the highway and seeing how fast the telephone poles go by that are along side the road, but the telephone poles in the distance seem to be going by much slower... But I guess as it pertains to this thread that difference is probably insignificant?

Buy a monopod.