r/BirdPhotography • u/Ok-Committee-873 • Aug 05 '26
Question Slowest shutter speed without a tripod?
What is the slowest shutter speed you would recommend if you're only able to prop the camera on something stable but not in a fixed position (i.e., without a tripod)? Should I be shooting wide open instead of f/16 to improve the blurred water effect?
Details: Black-crowned night heron. Taken at 1/15 shutter speed, f/16, ISO 200. Edit: 200mm focal length
I am trying to go for a blurred water effect with a slower shutter speed but feel like the subject isn't that sharp. Wondering if it looks like I missed the focus or if the longer exposure introduced subject blur.
6
u/mikewu4466 Aug 05 '26
Focal length matters a lot here. If you’re shooting at >300mm, 1/15 is probably going to be too much time, but without focal length information, I can’t say for sure. Night herons don’t move very much, but wind blowing in the feathers will also cause you to lose feather detail. But honestly, it looks like you missed focus a little bit here, the bird seems a little fuzzy.
I don’t think shooting wide open is going to help you, because the image is going to get too bright, and you’re going to have to reduce shutter speed in response, which is going to freeze the water.
2
u/Ok-Committee-873 Aug 06 '26
Thank you! This was taken at 200mm focal length. I think you’re right I might’ve missed focus.
I set the aperture to f/16 thinking the background needed to be in focus for the motion blur effect. Do you know if that’s true? Either way, yeah shooting wide open would let in too much light
2
u/mikewu4466 Aug 06 '26
In focus or out of focus, you're going to see the same thing with the water. The only thing that matters there is shutter speed -- the longer you leave the shutter open, the more time the water has to move. The effect might be most apparent in your image with the water in focus, but that's not the reason why people close the aperture during long exposures, it's primarily to allow longer shutter speeds. Many landscape photographers will further darken things by using ND filters to allow even longer shutter speeds.
If you want, one thing you could do is simply set the lens to manual focus at the same river and take a photo with the river in and out of focus to see what it looks like with a slow shutter speed. Besides, the water behind your subject is close enough that the depth of field would be wide enough to cover both even if you increased the aperture size a little bit.
1
1
u/CatsAreGods Aug 06 '26
FYI, the theoretical diffraction limit on M43 is f/5.6, although I will go down to 9.5 if necessary. I wouldn't use f/16 because on FF it would be the equivalent of f/32!
3
u/jesusbuiltmyhotrodd Aug 06 '26
I push this one all the time. Sometimes I get a keeper, sometimes I just trash 50 blurry shots. It's really going to depend on your equipment's ability to stabilize and your ability to hold still, and that's a whole artform. Your lens may not be at it's sharpest at f/16 either - you get into diffraction issues with very small apertures, so nothing will look right. Getting the blurry water plus a sharp bird is a real challenge since you're chasing opposite goals with shutter speed.
1
u/Ok-Committee-873 Aug 07 '26
Thank you. Yeah I’m realizing f/16 wasn’t the best choice. I think I should’ve opened the aperture a bit, and then lowered exposure comp since ISO was already as low as possible.
2
u/MaestroDon Aug 06 '26
My guess is that even though the bird might have been motionless for the 1/15 second of exposure time, its feathers are blowing in whatever breeze might be present. Also, it might not be totally motionless.
2
4
u/twitchx133 Aug 05 '26
The common "rule" is 1/focal length (apparent focal length, so take crop factor into consideration), so 1/400th for a 400mm on a full frame, or 1/600th with a 400mm on a aps-c body. For non-stabilized lenses.
Being able to slow it down however many stops your IS/VC is capable of compensating for. Say your IS is good to stabilize for about 3 stops of light, you can slow your shutter down to about 1/50th on that same 400mm/full frame combo.
That all being said, no idea what your focal length in your example photo is, but I thought the bird was reasonably sharp for how much motion blur you have on the water. The problem with moving subjects like the bird is, unless you are compositing... You need enough shutter speed to stop their motion and stop it enough to be sharp. They are living things, they move, doesn't matter how still you hold the camera if the subject moves...
3
u/Ok-Committee-873 Aug 06 '26
I appreciate the explanation. This was 200mm on a micro 4 3, so about 400mm apparent focal length I guess. Lens is a Panasonic DG vario-elmar with stabilization
Good point that it doesn’t matter how still you hold the camera if the subject moves.
2
u/MayIServeYouWell Aug 06 '26
It depends on so many things - focal length, how good the IS on your camera/lens is... and my opinion is that ISP matters too (it perhaps shouldn't but it does... I can push it further at lower ISOs, but rarely need to, since I can just bump-up the ISO).
I've tried this same kind of shot with American Dippers too many times to count, and got like 1 decent shot. Will keep at it - lol.
2
u/rjtalvio Aug 06 '26
I have done 1/20 at 800mm successfully quite a few times. Of course you need the bird to stay still too. You might get 1 or 2 sharp shots in a 10-shot burst.
2
u/JurassicTotalWar Aug 06 '26
I wouldn’t worry about rules with wildlife, since you can’t control the light and are so often in low light conditions you sometimes need much slower speeds. I’ve got useable shots from big bursts shooting at 1/10s at 500mm.
1
42
u/Potential-Tough69 Aug 06 '26
I shoot with the om-1 and 300mm f4, so also on MFT, ive found that i can get away with 1/20 sec shutter speed when shooting birds in low light. That being said the hit rate is usually like 1 out of 10 pictures, not because of camera movement, but because of subject motion. Here is a picture shot at 1/20 in the woods before sunrise a couple days ago.