Trying to stable my DSLR

tecboy · Jan 14, 2015

I have a lens without image stablization. Is it possible to hand hold a DSLR to shoot at very low shutter speed without image stablization?

Bebulamar · Jan 14, 2015

My brother could do it well at 1/4 sec. I can't.

dennybeall · Jan 14, 2015

Some folks can shoot at slow speeds quite well by bracing their body and holding their arms tight to their sides. I used to be able to do a passable job of it 40 or 50 years ago, not so much now. If you use a solid object (wall, desk, tree, post) to lean up against and brace your body tight and hold a breath you can learn to do quite well.
Consider taking ISO up to 800 or 1200 first so you can keep the speed up to 1/100th or higher.

480sparky · Jan 14, 2015

I've managed 15-sec exposures simply by holding the camera against something solid (tree, rock, door frame, etc.).

Buckster · Jan 14, 2015

Try this one out:

Stabilize Your Camera for $1 with a Washer, Bolt, and String

480sparky · Jan 14, 2015

Been doin' that for years. No, wait........... decades!

snerd · Jan 14, 2015

I have a new 24-70 f/2.8L II without image stabilization. It takes a steady hand, of which I do not have. But the IQ is so gorgeous, that I work on my holding technique a LOT when using it. Mainly with arms and elbows against body, and breathing, but I used the roof of the car once!

KmH · Jan 15, 2015

tecboy said:
I have a lens without image stablization. Is it possible to hand hold a DSLR to shoot at very low shutter speed without image stablization?

Yes.

Braineack · Jan 15, 2015

snerd said:
I have a new 24-70 f/2.8L II without image stabilization. It takes a steady hand, of which I do not have. But the IQ is so gorgeous, that I work on my holding technique a LOT when using it. Mainly with arms and elbows against body, and breathing, but I used the roof of the car once!

I have the new 24-70 VC, i dont even have technique anymore. i just limp wrist my camera, while drinking wine spritzers, and shoot.

tecboy · Jan 15, 2015

Thanks guys, it is good to know. I mentioned on the another thread that I picked up several old lenses from the camera club. I'm trying to get use to keep my camera steady.

snerd · Jan 15, 2015

Braineack said:
snerd said:

I have a new 24-70 f/2.8L II without image stabilization. It takes a steady hand, of which I do not have. But the IQ is so gorgeous, that I work on my holding technique a LOT when using it. Mainly with arms and elbows against body, and breathing, but I used the roof of the car once!

Click to expand...

I have the new 24-70 VC, i dont even have technique anymore. i just limp wrist my camera, while drinking wine spritzers, and shoot.

The IS is one of the only complaints a lot of people have about this lens, including me. But man does it take sweet images!

TCampbell · Jan 15, 2015

There's a "guideline" for how slow you should be able to go when hand-holding the camera.

The basic guideline was invented for 35mm film cameras (same size sensor as "full frame" digital cameras) and that guideline was that you should, if you are using good camera holding technique and trying to be steady, be able to hand hold a camera at shutter speeds of 1/focal-length. So if you have a 100mm lens, it'd be 1/100th. If you have a 50mm lens... then it's 1/50th.

But remember that guideline is for full-frame. With a crop-camera you'd need to multiply the focal length by the crop factor. That means with a 50mm lens and a 1.6 crop factor camera, you'd multiply 50 x 1.6 = 80 and use 1/80th instead of 1/50th.

The reason it's a "guideline" is because some people are different... some people can manage a slower speed than others. But remember the pre-req is that you are using good camera-holding technique and TRYING to be steady.

bratkinson · Jan 15, 2015

I wish I still had hands that were steady enough to take hand held long exposures in low light. But even back then, my keeper rate was considerably lower than shots made with a tripod or the camera otherwise 'planted' on something stable. My leaning against a wall, tree, or anything else for stability usually resulted in enough 'keepers' that I was satisfied.

These days, with 3 of my 4 lenses non-IS, I generally shoot with a shutter speed fast enough to stop camera and subject-motion caused blur. My general methodology is to crank up the ISO to the 'limit' of acceptable noise (or a little less) and adjust aperture and shutter speed as needed. Sometimes, I'm forced to shoot wide open, so DOF issues are a major consideration. Other times, I'm forced to shoot at, say, 1/30th and slower (for sufficient DOF), and therefore know I have to take maybe 20 or more shots to get a single, unblurred 'keeper'.

Bottom line, IS is nice to have, but stabilizing the camera is only part of the motion-blur cause. The other is subject movement. At slow shutter speeds, subject movement has blurred more shots for me than camera movement. Even 'posed' people at 1/30th will often move just enough to cause a blur.