shutter speed question

[TheGoofster]

Right now I'm in the process of trying to relearn a lot of what I used to know about photography, especially about the differences between a SLR and a DSLR.

The question I have right now is about shutter speed. I remember when I used to shoot with my SLR that the general rule of thumb was that 1/60 of a second was about as low as you wanted to comfortably go when holding a camera. If you were really steady you could probably get away with 1/30 of a second, but that was pushing it.
While looking through some shots taken on DSLR's and the exif information, I've seen some nice shots that people say were taken by hand, with shutter speeds as low as 1/10 of a second.
So how does shutter speed compare to SLR's and DSLR's? Is there a general rule about how low you can go with a shutter speed, and still get a nice hand-held shot?

I don't have my DSLR camera yet (hopefully in about a month I will, but I am trying to get a jump about learning about it), so I can' actually test it myself yet.

Again, thanks for any information.

[VVFF]

Right now I'm in the process of trying to relearn a lot of what I used to know about photography, especially about the differences between a SLR and a DSLR.

The question I have right now is about shutter speed. I remember when I used to shoot with my SLR that the general rule of thumb was that 1/60 of a second was about as low as you wanted to comfortably go when holding a camera. If you were really steady you could probably get away with 1/30 of a second, but that was pushing it.
While looking through some shots taken on DSLR's and the exif information, I've seen some nice shots that people say were taken by hand, with shutter speeds as low as 1/10 of a second.
So how does shutter speed compare to SLR's and DSLR's? Is there a general rule about how low you can go with a shutter speed, and still get a nice hand-held shot?

I don't have my DSLR camera yet (hopefully in about a month I will, but I am trying to get a jump about learning about it), so I can' actually test it myself yet.

Again, thanks for any information.

General rule of thumb:

shutter speed = 1/(focal length*crop factor)

Crop factor is the relative size of the sensor on your DSLR vs. a full frame sensor.

You then can add in stops of image stabilization if you have that on your lens or body. So here's two examples, one for a 100mm lens on a Canon 50D w/3-4 stops IS and a 17mm lens on a Canon 5D w/ no IS:

1/(100*1.6) = 1/160th a second + 3-4 stops IS = 1/20-1/10th a second longest shutter speed.

1/(17*1) = 1/17th a second + 0 stops IS = 1/17th a second.

So both these lenses you could shoot at approximately the same slowest shutter speed.

Hope that helps.

[TheGoofster]

General rule of thumb:

shutter speed = 1/(focal length*crop factor)

Crop factor is the relative size of the sensor on your DSLR vs. a full frame sensor.

You then can add in stops of image stabilization if you have that on your lens or body. So here's two examples, one for a 100mm lens on a Canon 50D w/3-4 stops IS and a 17mm lens on a Canon 5D w/ no IS:

1/(100*1.6) = 1/160th a second + 3-4 stops IS = 1/20-1/10th a second longest shutter speed.

1/(17*1) = 1/17th a second + 0 stops IS = 1/17th a second.

So both these lenses you could shoot at approximately the same slowest shutter speed.

Hope that helps.

Wow, my brain just went Pop!

OK, let me see if I get this right (which I probably don't), and perhaps you can help me understand it better.

The camera I plan on getting is the Nikon D3000. The lens it comes with is the VR 18-55mm lens.

So, in order to find how low I can get the shutter speed on a hand-held shot, I need to take:

1/(18 (the shortest focal length) * 3.5 (which is the aperture listed (actually it's 3.5 - 5.6) = 1/63 + 3 stops. I'm sorry but I don't really understand how to factor in the stops.

From what I do understand of this equation without the stops, I would be able to get around a 1/60th of a second shutter speed (Very similar to what it was on my older SLR camera). But when I add in the stops to the equation it should drop quite a bit lower.

[Chikabowa]

OK... I learned shutter speed a TOTALLY different way.

Take the lowest focal length of your lens and double it. Safely, that is the lowest you want to go with that particular lens.

So if you are shooting with a 50mm, theoretically, you don't want your shutter to drop less that 1/100.
If you are shooting with a 24-70mm lens, you don't want your shutter to drop down below 1/50.
With a 70-200mm (without VR or IS) you don't want to drop that shutter below, 1/140

That's the rule of thumb that I learned and in most cases it works just fine.

Now that is completely blown out of the water if you have someone with shaking hands or if you have someone with steady hands. Me in particular, I have very steady hands and strong arms. So I can hand-hold a D3 + 24-70 f2.8 + Sb-800 + Pocket Wizard down to 1/13 of a second. Any lower and I get camera shake. But I have an extremely practiced/steady hand so it works for me.

So that is how I always learned it. :)

[zackiedawg]

You're former rule of thumb is still a decent one, and should still apply. VVFF's rules are quite good if you want to go into further detail based on the lens being used - this will really start to make a difference as you get to longer lenses which will require a bit more shutter speed to hold steady. In general though, 1/60 is a pretty good rule of thumb for an average shooter in a proper stance.

Image stabilization can make up anywhere from 1-4 stops, depending on the system and also on your own stability. Slight vibrational movements are easier to correct than larger flinches or moves just as the shutter is firing...so folks without steady stances or holds on their camera might find trouble even with stabilization at too slow a shutter speed. Others can easily handhold at 1/30 without any stabilization...so with stabilization, it's not unheard of to reach 1/2 second or 1 second handheld with good results (I can pull off 1/2 second without too much trouble, and am about 50% at 1 second...on rare occasions, I've done 2 seconds handheld).

Most important is to have a good stance, good grip, and good technique when handholding slow shutter shots, with or without stabilization. Good reverse tension on your grip with both hands, relaxed elbows resting against the chest, viewfinder resting comfortably to the eye, stance spread out with one foot slightly forward and wide, half-press shutter to focus and lock, and a nice slow exhale before fully pressing the shutter.

I don't much worry about the calculations anymore, as much as I just go by feel...I decide based on how steady I think I'll be able to hold the camera, do a quick estimation on the 1-3 stops of stabilization, and decide if I'll need extra support or not. After running or walking around a bunch in a hot environment, I may not have quite as steady a stance as when I'm relaxed and cool, and have been rested before shooting.

[VVFF]

Wow, my brain just went Pop!

OK, let me see if I get this right (which I probably don't), and perhaps you can help me understand it better.

The camera I plan on getting is the Nikon D3000. The lens it comes with is the VR 18-55mm lens.

So, in order to find how low I can get the shutter speed on a hand-held shot, I need to take:

1/(18 (the shortest focal length) * 3.5 (which is the aperture listed (actually it's 3.5 - 5.6) = 1/63 + 3 stops. I'm sorry but I don't really understand how to factor in the stops.

From what I do understand of this equation without the stops, I would be able to get around a 1/60th of a second shutter speed (Very similar to what it was on my older SLR camera). But when I add in the stops to the equation it should drop quite a bit lower.

Aperture is not involved is this calculation. You are using a variable focal length lens. This means the shutter speed needed will vary depending on zoom. I believe the kit lens for Nikon has about 3 stops of IS. So...

At 18mm 1/(18*1.5) = 1/27s + 3 stops of IS = 1/3rd a second(I find lenses with 3 stops of IS are a little less than 3 stops so I would aim for 1/6th a second)

at 55mm 1/(55*1.5) = 1/82.5s + 3 stops of IS = 1/10th a second(I'd use 1/15th to back a bit off the 3 stops of IS)

Now again, these are guidelines. I recommend trying to shoot at these shutter speeds and see if the results you get are good. People's steadiness varies so you'll have to find where yours lies. I do find those values I quoted to be about the limits for me. So it does work well. If you steady your arms on anything you might be able to push this even farther.

EDIT: Forgot to explain "stops". A "stop" is a halving of shutter speed. So 3 stops of IS is (1/2)*3 = 1/8th the normal shutter needed. Same thing that ISO does. Increasing ISO one stop(i.e. 200->400) allows you to use a shutter speed that is two times faster at the identical aperture.

[Mckymousefn]

Ok, I have a Canon EOS 50D... last night i was trying to shoot pictures at a vollyball game. I had never shot in a gym before and was having a difficult time with out things going blurry. I have done football games... which are outside and baseball... and didn't have a problem with the pics, but the gym lighting threw it off. Any suggestions on that?? :confused3

[VVFF]

Ok, I have a Canon EOS 50D... last night i was trying to shoot pictures at a vollyball game. I had never shot in a gym before and was having a difficult time with out things going blurry. I have done football games... which are outside and baseball... and didn't have a problem with the pics, but the gym lighting threw it off. Any suggestions on that?? :confused3

Inside lighting is often much lower than light outside. Also volleyball is a bit faster paced if you don't want the ball to be blurred you will need a very fast shutter speed.

[MICKEY88]

Ok, I have a Canon EOS 50D... last night i was trying to shoot pictures at a vollyball game. I had never shot in a gym before and was having a difficult time with out things going blurry. I have done football games... which are outside and baseball... and didn't have a problem with the pics, but the gym lighting threw it off. Any suggestions on that?? :confused3


you either need a fast lens,,, high iso, a good external flash.. or a combination of the 3

[Groucho]

Don't forget that image stabilization, as great as it is, is only helpful when shooting something that isn't moving... it won't do much good when shooting action sports, for example.

[Mckymousefn]

Well, here is what i have as far as lens.... I have Canon EOS 50D (which i just got), Canon Ultrasounic 70-300mm with IS and Canon Ultrasonic 28-135mm with IS. For an extral flash i have an Olmpus digital flash (from camera i had before this one) FL-36.

[VVFF]

Well, here is what i have as far as lens.... I have Canon EOS 50D (which i just got), Canon Ultrasounic 70-300mm with IS and Canon Ultrasonic 28-135mm with IS. For an extral flash i have an Olmpus digital flash (from camera i had before this one) FL-36.

Both those lenses are relatively slow on their long end. You probably will want to look for a fast prime in a telephoto focal length or at least a F2.8 zoom.

[IndyShutterbug]

As others have stated, the wider the lens, the easier to capture in low light situations. When shooting inside sports, especially gym settings, the lights can help. They can also hurt. If mono-lights aren't allowed, I bump up the iso, and shoot at wide open. I find that my 70-200 2.8 is great, but I still at least shoot at 800, if not 1600 iso. Also, if allowed, a monopod is a great tool. A manfrotto can be had for under $50 dollars and is invaluable. When I shoot football games, I always use the telephoto on the monopod and then a backup with a zoom on a black rapid strap.
I also have the 28-135 IS, and while it is not a preferred indoor lens, it is a great daily walk around lens. Just watch out for the lens creep.

[YesDear]

To the original poster

The simple answer to your question is as others have said is that your rule of thumb is probably a great starting place with a DSLR. New technologies like VR and IS can provide you lower shutter speeds, but....

The bottom line for anything shutter speed is like Susan (Chickabowa)said, it depends on how steady you are with your given configuration.

Susan, maybe we should have have a photo meet and you can give zen breathing lessons and arm exercises for slow shutter speeds! Or as we always say.... practice, practice, practice! Oh to be young again!

[Chikabowa]

Susan, maybe we should have have a photo meet and you can give zen breathing lessons and arm exercises for slow shutter speeds! Or as we always say.... practice, practice, practice! Oh to be young again!

Hee hee.
Totally off topic... but when I first got married, my father in law took me out to the gun range to teach me how to shoot. I'd never picked up a gun before that time (I was about 24 at the time, almost 31 now). Anyway, handed me all these guns and I just started shooting as he instructed. Well, not only did I hit the targets, but they were all pretty close bulls-eye clusters. My father in law decided that day to become one of my best buddies - and to this day we hang out all the time together. :)

I think a lot of it just comes from practice. But learning how to exhale, hold your arms close, and then just freeze up while you take the shot is the big secret. :)

[YesDear]

I think a lot of it just comes from practice. But learning how to exhale, hold your arms close, and then just freeze up while you take the shot is the big secret. :)

And the real challenge is to learn to do that when you are under stress and you have to get the shot!
But you must be calm grasshopper!

[annnewjerz]

Hee hee.
Totally off topic... but when I first got married, my father in law took me out to the gun range to teach me how to shoot. I'd never picked up a gun before that time (I was about 24 at the time, almost 31 now). Anyway, handed me all these guns and I just started shooting as he instructed. Well, not only did I hit the targets, but they were all pretty close bulls-eye clusters. My father in law decided that day to become one of my best buddies - and to this day we hang out all the time together. :)

I think a lot of it just comes from practice. But learning how to exhale, hold your arms close, and then just freeze up while you take the shot is the big secret. :)

That gun story is too funny. I started shooting last year and the first time I shot a gun, I pretty much nailed my target close to the bullseye every time (with a 45mm Sig Sauer, not a rifle or anything...although I did shoot with a huge shotgun and boy did that hurt, but that's way OT).

My DH who was a sniper rated shooter in the Navy just looked me like...:eek: Don't mess with a woman with a gun. :rotfl:

[TheGoofster]

Thanks everyone for your great responses.

VVFF, I will keep working on trying to better understand the equation you mentioned. I would like to have a better understanding of the how and why of shutter speed.
ZackieDawg, thanks for the great advice about holding the camera. As soon as I finally get my camera, I will try and put that to good use (with lots and lots of pratice of course :thumbsup2).
And thanks everyone else about the good general rule of thumb about shutter speed. At least now I have a good starting point, and I can try and find a good speed that I can comfortably hold (and hopefully improve on).

[Pea-n-Me]

Bryan Peterson, author of Understanding Exposure, also has a book called Understanding Shutter Speed.

I am pretty good at holding still, also. I remember back when I was a kid my father told me to be sure to hold my breath when I took a picture in order to keep still, so it's something I've always done and still naturally do to this day.

Of course sometimes I wonder if I'm holding too still and counteracting the effect of the IS.

Sometimes you can definitely think this stuff too far through. :rotfl2:

[wenrob]

Bryan Peterson, author of Understanding Exposure, also has a book called Understanding Shutter Speed.

I am pretty good at holding still, also. I remember back when I was a kid my father told me to be sure to hold my breath when I took a picture in order to keep still, so it's something I've always done and still naturally do to this day.

This is how my Grandpa taught me and I still do it too, even when I'm doing a quick snap w/my iphone.:lmao:

Agreed, the general guidelines are a big help. I'm fairly comfortable at 1/30 if my kids are posing (HA!) and I need to go that slow. I've even had moderate success at 1/15 at times. I tend to keep my shutter speed around 1/125 most of the time indoors though, it's where I'm most confident I'm going to get the shot.

[seashoreCM]

I suggest startting with the same shutter speed rules for DSLR's as for (film) SLR's given the same angle of view in degrees.

If the camera has one stop of image stabilization, that means on average you can have twice the shutter open time (e.g. 1/30'th second instead of 1/60'th second) for the same sharpness when hand-holding the camera. Two stops of IS means 4 times the shutter open time.

Crop factor is one number to help derive the 35mm film camera equivalent focal length, when the lens was taken from a different camera body to put on the body you are using. Shutter speed rules are the same for a DSLR versus a SLR each with lens of (or zoomed to) the same 35mm film camera equivalent focal length (which translates to the same angle of view in degrees) and all other things being equal.

I find it hard to believe someone got a great sharp shot at 1/10'th second without a tripod or a lot of luck.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

[Gdad]

I have always just used the reciprocal of the focal length I am shooting at (50mm = 1/50th) for a basic guideline/benchmark and I try not to drop too many stops below that for best consistent results. Everyone has their own abilities and tolerances- and everyone has their own idea of what is an acceptable ‘keeper’ and what’s a throw-away. Like a lot of people I have ‘pulled off’ a couple 1/4 second handheld miracles here and there but it’s not a setting I would consider trying except in a pinch (or more likely a happy accident.)

I know what I have read but I don't really buy into the whole crop factor adjustment thing either- 50mm is 50mm cropped or full frame- you are just grabbing light from a smaller part of the image circle. I could be shooting with my daughters 6mp D40 which is 'cropped' or using a full frame 24mp D3x and crop it myself to the same view- what's the difference? SLR’s shooting crop sensors, full frame sensors, and even film, I find what I can do and what I can’t do to be about the same.

[boBQuincy]

I know what I have read but I don't really buy into the whole crop factor adjustment thing either- 50mm is 50mm cropped or full frame- you are just grabbing light from a smaller part of the image circle. I could be shooting with my daughters 6mp D40 which is 'cropped' or using a full frame 24mp D3x and crop it myself to the same view- what's the difference? SLR’s shooting crop sensors, full frame sensors, and even film, I find what I can do and what I can’t do to be about the same.

I completely agree! The lens is the same, the distance from the focal point to the sensor is the same, and given the same amount of vibration the movement of the image on the sensor will be the same. If anything has changed it is our definition of what is sharp, and that has become more critical as we pixel-peep at 100% and routinely make enlargements of 13x19 and more from a "35mm" camera.

[DisneyGrampa]

I'm an old SLR guy, who never tried to hand-hold below 1/30 sec. But with my stabilized new D5000, I can easily do better than that. I spent a few days practicing low speed shooting with it, and I found that if I took three shots in a row-I'm not talking about a multi mode-I got much better results on the third shot. Has anyone ever tried this?

[Chikabowa]

I'm an old SLR guy, who never tried to hand-hold below 1/30 sec. But with my stabilized new D5000, I can easily do better than that. I spent a few days practicing low speed shooting with it, and I found that if I took three shots in a row-I'm not talking about a multi mode-I got much better results on the third shot. Has anyone ever tried this?

Definitely. I shoot on Continuous Low quite frequently, and I have that set to 7fps. When in low-light situations, I'll often pull off three frames of the same shot and usually the middle one is the sharpest.

[VVFF]

I have always just used the reciprocal of the focal length I am shooting at (50mm = 1/50th) for a basic guideline/benchmark and I try not to drop too many stops below that for best consistent results. Everyone has their own abilities and tolerances- and everyone has their own idea of what is an acceptable ‘keeper’ and what’s a throw-away. Like a lot of people I have ‘pulled off’ a couple 1/4 second handheld miracles here and there but it’s not a setting I would consider trying except in a pinch (or more likely a happy accident.)

I know what I have read but I don't really buy into the whole crop factor adjustment thing either- 50mm is 50mm cropped or full frame- you are just grabbing light from a smaller part of the image circle. I could be shooting with my daughters 6mp D40 which is 'cropped' or using a full frame 24mp D3x and crop it myself to the same view- what's the difference? SLR’s shooting crop sensors, full frame sensors, and even film, I find what I can do and what I can’t do to be about the same.

The reasoning behind it is that it could effectively be considered a "digital zoom" of sorts. It's a crop of the original frame resulting in a smaller portion of the light being displayed the same size on screen as the full frame would have been. This makes slight blurring more apparent in the crop shot. Not to mention that the more densely packed sensor on a crop camera will have blur that extends for more pixels. Similar to how chromatic aberration can "appear" larger at 100% than on a less pixel dense sensor. In the end it doesn't matter though as all that matters is that the photographer decide a good rule for him.

[VVFF]

I suggest startting with the same shutter speed rules for DSLR's as for (film) SLR's given the same angle of view in degrees.

If the camera has one stop of image stabilization, that means on average you can have twice the shutter open time (e.g. 1/30'th second instead of 1/60'th second) for the same sharpness when hand-holding the camera. Two stops of IS means 4 times the shutter open time.

Crop factor is one number to help derive the 35mm film camera equivalent focal length, when the lens was taken from a different camera body to put on the body you are using. Shutter speed rules are the same for a DSLR versus a SLR each with lens of (or zoomed to) the same 35mm film camera equivalent focal length (which translates to the same angle of view in degrees) and all other things being equal.

I find it hard to believe someone got a great sharp shot at 1/10'th second without a tripod or a lot of luck.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

Provided nothing is moving I can easily shoot at 17mm and get a sharp shot with my 17-55mm F2.8 IS @ less than 1/10th a second.

Even if you use the "conservative" approach of multiplying by the crop factor and only assuming 2 stops of IS(advertised 3) then you'll get 1/6th a second as the "safe" limit. Indeed, I can use this and things turn out just fine.

Here's an example with the above lens at 44mm F2.8 1/10th a second exposure. I pushed this one a bit farther than normal but I was in a good position for less camera shake but still no tripod.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/purduery/3979156378/meta/

[GrillMouster]

I completely agree! The lens is the same, the distance from the focal point to the sensor is the same, and given the same amount of vibration the movement of the image on the sensor will be the same. If anything has changed it is our definition of what is sharp, and that has become more critical as we pixel-peep at 100% and routinely make enlargements of 13x19 and more from a "35mm" camera.

The amount of camera movement would be the same regardless of whether the sensor is full frame or crop, but how much of the frame that motion affects would be greater on the crop sensor than it would be on the full frame sensor. It's all about relativity. Vibration that would cause a point in the scene to sway from the center of the frame to the edge of the frame on a 35mm-equivalent sensor would cause the point to sway from edge to edge (or completely off frame) of a crop sensor.

Here's an experiment to try: hold your arm straight out in front of you, close one eye, and use your thumb and index finger to frame a person standing down the hall from head to toe. In other words, from your perspective it would appear that the person is standing on top of your thumb and your index finger is touching the top of the person's head. Your arm will have a certain amount of vibration, but, not enough to lose the "frame". Now, pinch your thumb and index finger together so that only the person's nose and mouth are visible between your fingers. You'll find that even though your arm has the same amount of vibration that it did when you framed the person's entire body, the effect of the vibration is much greater when a smaller portion of the scene is in frame. That's because the amount of vibration, is greater in relation to the second scene, even though it is the same, as a raw measurement, to the first.

It's the same as a picture appearing sharp when viewed at 25% on your screen, but blurry at 100%. It's also the same as capturing a car going 120 miles per hour from a distance of 500 yards vs capturing that same car at the same speed from 10 feet away. Even though the car is traveling the same speed, it moves faster across the frame the closer you are to it.

[boBQuincy]

The amount of camera movement would be the same regardless of whether the sensor is full frame or crop, but how much of the frame that motion affects would be greater on the crop sensor than it would be on the full frame sensor. It's all about relativity. Vibration that would cause a point in the scene to sway from the center of the frame to the edge of the frame on a 35mm-equivalent sensor would cause the point to sway from edge to edge (or completely off frame) of a crop sensor.

Exactly. And when we enlarge the images 10x we find *exactly* the same amount of blur in the images! It is completely a function of how much the lens moved multiplied by the magnification of that lens.

If we look through a FF and a 1.6x crop camera with a 50 mm lens (both with 100%, 1.0x viewfinders) the images look about the same size as if we looked with our eyes. If we mount a 200mm lens the image is now 4x *on both cameras*. We just see less of the frame on the 1.6x camera but the magnification is exactly the same!

A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens and will never appear as a 320mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera.

[GrillMouster]

But since the crop sensor camera is packing roughly the same number of pixels than the full-frame sensor, the images would not have the same amount of blur if you enlarged them both 10x. The blur would extend over more pixels in the crop sensor camera. The amount of subject motion blur present in an image is influenced primarily by how quickly the subject moves from one edge of the frame to the other. That's why you can photograph an extremely fast-moving object, like a jet plane, with a low shutter speed when it's very far away, but you'd need a much faster shutter speed if you photographed the same object traveling at the same speed up close. The reason you need a faster shutter speed in the latter scenario is not (just) because it's closer, but because it moves across the frame faster.

I understand your point that a 50mm lens (which closely approximates the field of view of the human eye, and, thus, why it's referred to as a "normal lens) is a 50mm lens regardless of the size of the sensor. Yes, the crop-sensor just receives light from a smaller portion of the lens. However, because a moving subject would traverse the frame of a crop sensor faster than it does the frame of a full-frame sensor, a faster shutter speed would be required for the crop sensor camera. If the crop sensor were able to capture the same framing as the full-frame sensor (which I guess would no longer mean it's a crop sensor), then the subject would move across the frame at the same speed, and THEN the shutter speed could be the same.

I think it's hard to grasp this, because the logical mind says "the subject is moving at the same speed, at the same distance to the camera, so the shutter speed required to freeze the action should be the same", but it's all about the relative size.

The only other thing I can think to compare it to is how the relative size of a light source affects whether it gives soft or hard shadows. A small light bulb that would create hard shadows on a person's face would create soft shadows on a miniature toy, because to that toy the light is relatively large. I know, it's a weird example, but it's photography related. :)

[seashoreCM]

Not exactly on topic but I do not think it is meaningful to compare the images from two cameras or two camera/lens combinations unless the subject matter in each image is the same and both are presented as finished pictures of the same size.

So in the case of the same 200mm lens used on different cameras, the image from the larger frame camera needs be cropped so as to have identical subject matter the other camera delivered (You can do this during postprocessing). Now both images will be the same size. Both could then be enlarged the same amount if desired. The amount of blur from a slow shutter speed coupled with less than steady hand holding will still on average be the same in terms of microns or millimeters.

If we put a lens with an actual focal length of 200mm on a 1.6 crop frame camera, the lens focal length needed to fill a full (35mm film) frame with the same content would be 320mm. To compare the results we need to at the very least enlarge the smaller image (during postprocessing) to be the same size as the larger image. After this is done, the amount of blur from a slow shutter speed coupled with less than steady hand holding will on average be the same in terms of microns or millimeters, all other things, including amount of image stabilization, being equal.