>>2891067>F/3.5 and 1/80s time at 18mmThis isn't about shake, the blur in this image comes from lack of understanding of Depth of Field (DoF)
F/3.5 is a wide aperture, with a very small DoF. You'll notice at 3.5 if you take a picture of your hand, the objects in the background will be blurry.
If you repeat this at F/22, a very small opening in the lens, there's a lot less light, but it's coming in much more straight (since it's not as wide an opening) and the objects behind your target won't be very blurred.
As your picture here is scenery, with like 20+ feet of things worth looking at, you'll need to have a wide depth-of-field so the things in front are in focus and the things in back are also in focus.
To do this you'll need to close down your aperture (Something like F/12-F/22 rather than F/3.5), put the camera on a tripod so you can increase shutter time and then also raise ISO (400 is rather low, 800 is more normal for a dark forest, some cameras can even do 1600 without much degradation)
Increasing ISO without increasing shutter time would add far too much noise, so it wouldn't be better than the current shot.
The compromise will be between how much the water is motion-blurred (a long shutter time will make it look like a cloud rather than detailed time-freeze) versus how noisy the picture is if you use high ISO to combat the bad lighting instead.
For photography, having extra light available is automatically overall superior to less light, because there is nothing you can buy (without using some sort of flash) to do really fast shutter shots in darkness with low-noise.
Whereas you can do super-fast shots in bright light (fast shutter) with low noise, and you can go ISO100 with Neutral Density filters (reduce light) when you need slow shots in bright light.
If you were shooting a portrait rather than a background, you only need a half-a-foot of DoF instead of like 20 feet, so for those you can keep the lens open wider and much more often handhold.
