… are simply a result of camera shake! And that despite the stabilizer. I even believe that many photos are blurred precisely because of the stabilizer. That’s a steep thesis, you think? Maybe, but of course I will justify my thesis.

The good old rule of thumb

Back then, when there was no stabilizer, everyone knew the rule of thumb against blurred pictures: The exposure time should be shorter than the reciprocal of the focal length used. For a focal length of 100 mm, the exposure time should therefore be at least 1/100 s or, even better, 1/125 s. As with any rule of thumb, of course, this can still go wrong, depending on the photographer’s coffee consumption …

The above image was taken with a focal length of 200 mm and an exposure time of 1/50 s. According to the rule of thumb above, camera shake was bound to occur. Buuuut: The lens has a stabilizer that, according to the manufacturer, compensates for three exposure stops. Consequently, the image should still have been sharp even at an exposure time of 1/25 s. But it isn’t, despite 1/50 s. And quite honestly, I never trusted the manufacturer’s specifications in this matter.

“Trust is good …

… control is better”, they say. However, many photographers seem to have boundless trust in their equipment. And because the lens or camera has a latest-generation stabilizer, camera shake is almost impossible. They think. The problem is exacerbated by small sensors. The rule of thumb against camera shake must also include the “crop factor.” Thus, with a Micro Four Thirds camera, the exposure time should be shorter than 1/200 s with a focal length of 100 mm.

The issue is even more critical with compact cameras. Some bridge cameras have a zoom lens whose longest focal length converted to full-frame is 1200 mm (or even longer). Such a lens for a full-frame camera looks like this:

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/canon_1200/overview.php

Nobody in full possession of their mental (and physical powers, because the thing is super heavy) would use such a lens handheld. But that’s exactly what owners of bridge cameras do almost exclusively, because it looks a bit strange to put such a compact camera on a tripod. The yield of blurry photos is correspondingly high. Relying on the stabilizer, hardly any attention is paid to the exposure time. The stabilizer takes care of it. But it doesn’t always do so, because it has its limits.

Conclusion

Please don’t get me wrong. I would definitely not want to do without the stabilizer. It does a really good job when you shoot handheld. But you should not overestimate the possibilities of the stabilizer and be aware of its limitations.

As always, please feel free to leave a comment. I’m looking forward to it.