Have you got steady hands?

[RFFan]

Recently when shooting my Canon FD system I have been religiously noting aperture and shutter speed values for each frame. I’ve undertaken this because I want, once and for all, to get a proper handle on which of my FD lenses really deliver the kind of sharpness I want in ‘hand-held’ situations.

This exercise has been quite an eye-opener. I always thought that I had steady hands when it came to holding a camera, and yet I find that shots taken with the FD 35/2.8 lens (a stunning lens by the way) at 1/60 are visibly sharper than shots at 1/30 even at 6 x 4ins. I know that shooting a 35mm lens at 1/30 technically fails the ‘shoot at a MINIMUM of 1/focal length’ rule but not by much.

This result surprised me because I have slides taken on Kodachrome 200 (farewell old friend!) inside a buddhist shrine in Japan shot hand-held on my Canon QL17 GIII at 1/8 sec (40mm lens) and the clarity and detail never ceases to amaze me. No doubt the absence of a mirror in the RF is a major factor but has anyone else experienced such a BIG difference in their ability to hand-hold an SLR v RF? May be I’ve got the DTs!?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The quick answer is that the SLR mirror does produce vibration and it will blur the picture more than an RF camera. When using very long lenses (500mm) with the Nikkormats, I used the self-timer at a minimum setting to flip the mirror up. I had a friend that was an avid nature photographer, he used two tripods with his EOS-RT (Pellicle mirror) and a 1000mm lens, acheived very good results.

If you have a lot invested in FD lenses, you can look for a Canon Pellix. Finding one with an intact pellicle mirror will take a little time. The vibration on mine is about the same as a Canon 7 RF.

 

[Ken Davis]

Sounds about right. You can hold rangefinders steadier than SLR's and I have had similar experiences. Sometimes you get way with slow speed work but it is not something to depend on. Much better to open up a stop or two or use a faster film - some suggest anything below 125 is risky!

 

[captainslack]

I can't even handhold a Canonet at 1/30!!! I envy anyone that can hold at 1/8!

 

[oftheherd]

When I was in my 30s (amazing that I can still remember that far back 😀 ) I could photograph inside buddhist temples in Korea at 1/2 to 1 second, hand held. If possible, I always braced my head or shoulders on a gate post or wall. Even without, at 1/2 I was able to get pretty sharp photos with a Yashica TL Super and an f/1.7 lens.

When I try shots like that now I am more likely to be disappointed, and it isn't all just being more critical. :bang: ( I must start excercising again, someday, soon, ... sigh)

 

[john neal]

I trained for accurate shooting over long distances and used to be able to hand-hold my Nikon FM SLR at 1/15 with a short lens, and found that I could easily hold a Canonet at 1/8.

In NY a couple of years ago, I struggled to hold my Canon IVf at 1/8 for night shots. Have not tried anything less than 1/15 with my MP - must give it a go and see what turns out.

Perhaps there is something here about leaf shutters being so light and inertia free?

 

[Pherdinand]

It happened that i handheld a 135/2.8 at 1/4 s and the result was satisfactory. Not blur-free but better than expected. It depends ALOT on myself, in that moment. After coffee, after table-tennis, after a long day, after carrying home the stuff from the saturday mid-day grocery shopping, it doesn't work. I can manage to blur an image at 1/125 s as well, with a normal lens.

I am sure that IN MY CASE the mirror-induced vibration is only the second parameter after my own condition.

 

[Pherdinand]

Example here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2494519 (minota SLR) 135mm wide-open at about 1/8-1/15 s

 

[Pherdinand]

and this is the only one that is satisfactory and it was at 1/4 s
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1436414
The blur on the head and hadn is subject motion... There's an overall blur from the low sh speed; even after heavy USM it's there.

 

[back alley]

i don't have much that IS steady these days...🙂

 

[andy1100xx]

I trained for accurate shooting over long distances

Interesting, how did you go about that John?

 

[dmr]

shot hand-held on my Canon QL17 GIII at 1/8 sec (40mm lens) and the clarity and detail never ceases to amaze me. No doubt the absence of a mirror in the RF is a major factor but has anyone else experienced such a BIG difference in their ability to hand-hold an SLR v RF?

The ability to go to a slower shutter speed handheld is the main reason I went (back) to rangefinders for low-light work. (With the rangefinders) I've found that I can consistently do 1/30 and often 1/15. I haven't tried 1/8, but I might do it just to see what I can do. I do think I have a very steady hand. 🙂 With the SLR (Pentax K1000, normal lens) I like to shoot at 1/125 or faster, but I can often do 1/30 fairly reliably. IIRC, this one was 1/30 with the Pentax:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4964/lasalle.jpg

I was disappointed with one of my recent Kodachromes done with the GIII. I know I shot it at 1/60 or 1/125, but it did show the classic double-image ghost of camera movement when scanned at hi-res and blown up. 🙁 Gotta watch it. 🙂

 

[cameramanic]

Leica P&S

Leica P&S

I have been reading the posts about what is the best point and shoot camera,
and I have now got a case of gas for one.

What can any one tell me about the following, Leica Minilux f2.4 40mm Leica summarit lens.

 

[bmattock]

a) I was also trained for long-range target shooting - Uncle Sam did my training. The exercise also applies to photography in certain ways. BRASS - Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze. Sight alignment and sight picture. About the only thing that doesn't apply is Kentucky Windage, since there's no 'bullet drop' with photography.

b) I got less shaky when I quit smoking. I suppose I'd get even better if I stopped drinking coffee, but I'll never do that.

c) I shoot Canon FD system SLR also. Many/most have MLU, which is worth using with a tripod when critical sharpness is required. Better tripods produce better results. Remote shutter release also helps.

d) I used a Bessa R and 50mm Canon f1.4 wide open at 1/8 (handheld) to take my one and only gallery photo - the train station in Boston. Good and sharp, I was surprised. RF's *do* help to reduce camera shake, with no mirror flipping around in there.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Bertram2]

No doubt the absence of a mirror in the RF is a major factor but has anyone else experienced such a BIG difference in their ability to hand-hold an SLR v RF? May be I’ve got the DTs!?

HMM, I'd say your test is no done yet !?

There ARE vibes from the mirror, but this differs from camera to camera. Firing an old Canon FTb or Nikkormat is pretty different from a modern F80 which has no perceivable vibes.
Same the RF cameras: The Bessas have a second curtain which protects the blades of getting burned and this double design causes vibes (and noise) clearly more than the Leica cloth shutter does. Unbeaten are the blade shutters in fixed lens cameras, my Yashica fires without a sound you must be in a very quiet environment to notice it.
So IMHO a generalization does not help, the overlaps are to large from design to design. If you want to b sure test all YOUR cameras carefully to learn what they are good for when it comes to slow shutter times.

BTW What some passionated free-hand artists call sharp or still sharp or acceptable can be shocking :bang: If somebody tries to teach you lessons about free hand shooting first watch his pics before you listen to him !

I always did so and as a a result I personally use a tripod or use any kind of support in general for all times slower than 1/60, for ALL my cameras. Maybe it can work without a support too sometimes but it's a damn lottery.

As I said, it all depends on the understanding of the term "sharp". For me "sharp" MEANS sharp and not "quite sharp" or even "a touch of blur" or so. 😀

Regards,
Bertram
"Everthing slower than 1/250 is a risk" --> Ansel Adams
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept " --> H.C.B.
( But this was joke, many dont't know !)

 

[RFFan]

I can't even handhold a Canonet at 1/30!!! I envy anyone that can hold at 1/8!

My Canonet has a REALLY smooth, whisper like shutter release at 1/8 sec so it works OK for me. I have tried 1/4 sec hand-held but the resulting pics always have visible camera shake so I know my limit with this camera. I'm slightly stunned by some of the hand-held speeds being quoted by some of the other guys....I mean....1/4s for a 135mm lens.....did I really read that?!

 

[Bertram2]

I mean....1/4s for a 135mm lens.....did I really read that?!

Free hand ? I've read such idiotic stuff too. These people simply do not know what they are talking about . But they don't care , they are not interested in the facts.
The web attracts such wannabe experts which haven't the slightest clue of photography. They post all kinda crap just to attract attention and the worst you can do is to start a discussion with them and to get thus a victim of abuse..
As I said, photos only prove a photog's competence. `
AA WAS competent, wasn't he ??

Take care,
Bertram

 

[oftheherd]

Free hand ? I've read such idiotic stuff too. These people simply do not know what they are talking about . But they don't care , they are not interested in the facts.
The web attracts such wannabe experts which haven't the slightest clue of photography. They post all kinda crap just to attract attention and the worst you can do is to start a discussion with them and to get thus a victim of abuse..
As I said, photos only prove a photog's competence. `
AA WAS competent, wasn't he ??

Take care,
Bertram

Well sir, I think it is just like many other physical feats. Some people can run really fast, others box really well. Some people are better at a lot of things than I am or ever will be. Of course, I can do some things well too. Some with training and practice, can shoot rifles and/or pistols really well. I was always a pretty good shot, but not much of a runner and definately not a boxer.

That translated well into steady photography too. At least for me. It doesn't for everybody. Mind you, as I mentioned above, I am not nearly as steady as I was many years ago, when I did more shooting, both weapons and cameras. My muscles were more accustomed to holding steady, and from practice, were strong enough to stay steady long enough to get of good shots, weapons or cameras. I wouldn't recommend you stand in front of me if you were my weapons target, but could I qualify for a rifle team as I did then? Maybe for seniors, but not likely against younger folks.

My point is that absent evidence to the contrary, I will take a person's word for being able to hand hold at longer speeds than me (just as some were better rifle shots than me). Especially in the above case where a poster mentioned that his photo was not blur free, but satisfactory. Knowing how steady some people can be, I would have believed it if he said it was sharp.

If you cannot do that I am sorry. I bet you could with practice. I could probably do better with more practice than I do now too.

 

[Pherdinand]

[135mm @ 1/4 s] Free hand ? I've read such idiotic stuff too. These people simply do not know what they are talking about . But they don't care , they are not interested in the facts.
The web attracts such wannabe experts which haven't the slightest clue of photography. They post all kinda crap just to attract attention and the worst you can do is to start a discussion with them and to get thus a victim of abuse..

🙂🙂 LOL, well thanks Bertram; attracting attention, that was certainly NOT my intention, but it could seem to be, i agree.

As to the original question - yes, the photo at 1/4s does show blur from camera shake. But i still consider it acceptable. Sharpness is a relative thing.
And it was an unique success. Any fool can get lucky once in a while.

 

[BJ Bignell]

With a 50mm lens, I can guarantee myself 1/30 and get down to 1/8 on a good day. Once and only once, I got lucky and nailed a shot at 1/2 with my old SLR.