Have you got steady hands?

[bmattock]

I agree - I also agree that some can do what I can't in terms of hand-holding without shake. I know I got better when I applied my rifle marksmanship training. I know I improved when I stopped smoking. But I also know that others are more steady than I am.

If I am not being careful, 1/30 with a fixed-lens rangefinder at f2.8 eludes me. If I am being careful, my personal best was 1/8 with a 50mm at f1.4. That was a good day.

I'll make use of whatever the environment affords me - leaning against things, propping my camera on things, whatever works. But in the end, nothing beats a tripod, cable release, and mirror up if I have an SLR.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[johne]

I can emphathize with the growing lack of physical skills. After I passed 75 I quit jumping over fire plugs and rail fences.
Johne

 

[Bertram2]

Ouff !! Sorry for that !

Ouff !! Sorry for that !

🙂🙂 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.

Pherdinand,
sorry, i did not see that it was you who shot the 135mm at 1/4 and I am glad that you take it with some humor. :bang:

1/4sec or not: Of course I do NOT count you to that special species i mentioned tho the example and my statement could make you believe so. I think we have talked and listened long enuff to each other here to exclude such an assumption.

As far as the pic is concerned we don't differ in our opinion that it is not sharp, but still acceptable for you personally.

Best regards and soory again,,
Bertram

 

[oftheherd]

I can emphathize with the growing lack of physical skills. After I passed 75 I quit jumping over fire plugs and rail fences.
Johne

Rail fences I understand. But fire plugs ... what did you have to lose? 😀

 

[Bertram2]

That translated well into steady photography too. At least for me. It doesn't for everybody. .

No, not for me, the gun comparison does not help IMHO, it's different. And I know how to use a gun btw.

No, I have simply made a stupid mistake. The question of RFFan was:
--------
"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."
---------

Before posting any opinions I should have asked him "What IS that kinda sharpness you want in handheld situations ?"

Knowing this first ( maybe by watching an example he sends me ) I could have told him what shuttertimes I 'd recommend.

"Sharpness" is a generic term, opposite to "resolution" which owns a clear scientific definition, which cannot be interpreted.

Sharpness does not own a scientific definition. In photography it is more
a summary of all visual effects and their impact. And last not least, to make it even more flexible ( and dangerous ) it is relative too, even if only resolution is meant. Relative to the photog's perception, his experience , his level of skill and craft , to what he keeps as sufficient and relative to the theme of the photo. For a portrait you won't use document film and a tack sharp macro lens I mean .

My answer was to rash, i did not think about all this, I had "(near) maximum resolution " in my mind only, which is of course not interpretable. You can't get that with 1/4 handheld but this wasn't asked at all.

Regards,
Bertram

 

[pvdhaar]

Depends on the day; some days I just have it, and I'll get to 1/8 and everything's still sharp. But at other times, I can't even use 1/60 for a 25mm without getting fuzzy images.

I do however notice that it's not just my own doing. If there's enough wind, everything moves, trees, grass. All leading up to the impression of camera shake, but in reality it's motion blur.

I've now made it my habit to shoot landscape at at least 1/125 to overcome this.

 

[Pherdinand]

I agree, there are situations when the image is expected to be shap-shap 🙂 (any south-african around?) but the level is mostly dictated by the subject matter and the expectations of the viewer on that subject. Even a landscape might be blurry and beautiful ("good"), and i've seen many great shots with pinholes or holgas where i wouldn't even think about sharpness (e.g. the holga series of s.liu on photo.net...)

On the Ansel Adams reference - sure he knew how to shoot great landscapes, but didn't he use a large format gear for that? Meaning long lenses and sturdy tripods...As far from handheld photography as possible.

I also wonder about his famous statement "anything below 1/250..." - he shot quite some landscapes in the dusk, moonlight etc. - with slooow film by today's standard - his shutter speeds had to be really long, isn't this a contradiction? or am I missing something? (He might have been saying the above about handheld photography, but such "detail" is never quoted.) If someone would enlighten me about this, i'd be glad.

cheers

 

[Bertram2]

On the Ansel Adams reference - sure he knew how to shoot great landscapes, but didn't he use a large format gear for that? Meaning long lenses and sturdy tripods...As far from handheld photography as possible.

I also wonder about his famous statement "anything below 1/250..." - he shot quite some landscapes in the dusk, moonlight etc. - with slooow film by today's standard - his shutter speeds had to be really long, isn't this a contradiction? or am I missing something? (He might have been saying the above about handheld photography, but such "detail" is never quoted.) If someone would enlighten me about this, i'd be glad.

cheers

Allegedly this quote refers to 35mm, but i think the truth is what you suppose it to be: A large format rule, it simply sounds exactly this way.
On the other hand , considering what enormous resolution performance you can get out of a 35mm system by avoiding any camera motion, the quote sounds plausible too.

I own a Tamron 28-300 zoon which I wanted to sell because the first results looked so depressing. Since I learned to load the camera with 400 or 800 film
to keep the AE setting the shutter to 1/250 or (much) more , I detected what a stunning performance this cheap consumer lens has from f5,6 on ! It is another lens now.

35 mm is simply very sensitive to all kind of "abuse", much more than MF is and a lot of the gap between the systems results of careless use of 35mm.
Putting both systems on a tripod you come much closer to MF than you thought, the larger neg has not only advantages but also disadvantages.
Bended film, longer lenses, less DOF etc. But it is less sensitive to careless use of course,.Regards,
Bertram

 

[Cmacuk]

Hands must be super strong! I can shot from my sport rifle using only right hand. But I try not to use 1/30. I have a .... in english.... little rope or wire (manual thing to make shots in long shutters, but I don`t use it. What for? 400 iso - is quite sensitive.

 

[Kin Lau]

Just to add some thoughts to this. Not all SLR's are made the same and I've used some new camera's where the mirror slap is minimal due to dampening, IOW test each camera.

Often, if I'm shooting in the under 1/30 territory, sharpness is not a high priority... sharp enough is usually fine, since I'm likely already shooting wide open with shallow dof, in low light, fast film(grainy)/high iso(noisy), all of which don't help the sharpness.

 

[P C Headland]

I always find that SLR cameras are harder to handhold at lower speeds than RF or TLR cameras. But it also depends on the camera, and of course the person. Target shooting skills also come into play.

The Moskva 5 is a b!tch to handhold below 1/100s in landscape mode, but 1/50s is quite possible in portrait mode. The Iskra can be handheld at 1/30s and slower.

But the best camera for handholding to ridiculously slow speeds is my Minox 35GT.

Paul