Moving from RF to SLR first impressions

megido

megido

Well-known
Local time
9:52 PM
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
303
Hello all
After being a RF user (Leica m3/2) for many years, I recently decided to try using an SLR (Nikkormat) for more accurate framing, longer lenses etc.
My first contact sheets show quite obviously that my hand held technique needs more consideration with an Slr. Many of the frames exhibit a distinct lack of sharpness in comparison to my usual results with an M. This includes higher shutter speeds.
Is this just a question of practice? I generally feel I am pretty confident at holding a camera steady at least an Rf.
Any tips or advice much appreciated.
 
My anecdotal impressions are that the difference if felt particularly with longer lens lengths, and the cause of blurring is hand motion rather than "mirror slap" (since a shot taken with the camera immobilized generally not have the same blur).

I assume you are aware of the rule of thumb that the shutter speed should be the inverse of the lens length, i.e. for a 90mm lens the slowest shutter speed "should" be 1/90). I can't say I particularly honor the rule in practice...
 
You don't say whether the lack of sharpness is blur from misfocus or camera shake. If the latter, I suspect it's simply a need to get used to the new camera with its different weight, shape and ergonomics - especially as you've used another camera for a long time. The problem might possibly be down to the heavier weight of the Nikon making it more difficult to hold steady, so perhaps change how you grasp the camera.

If the blur is due to misfocus, and the viewfinder shows perfect focus, then your Nikon may need a service - it's not unheard of for SLR mirrors to become out of whack with the film plane. It should be a straightforward fix for a camera tech.

Sticking the camera on tripod and taking test shots with a cable release will show you where the problem lies...
 
RichC said:
You don't say whether the lack of sharpness is blur from misfocus or camera shake. If the latter, I suspect it's simply a need to get used to the new camera with its different weight, shape and ergonomics - especially as you've used another camera for a long time. The problem might possibly be down to the heavier weight of the Nikon making it more difficult to hold steady, so perhaps change how you grasp the camera.

If the blur is due to misfocus, and the viewfinder shows perfect focus, then your Nikon may need a service - it's not unheard of for SLR mirrors to become out of whack with the film plane. It should be a straightforward fix for a camera tech.

Sticking the camera on tripod and taking test shots with a cable release will show you where the problem lies...
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a case of mis focus as some shots were taken at f8/11 so any misalignment of the mirror would I presume, be negligible. It may be a question of ergonomics and getting used to holding a heavier camera. I should have mentioned the lenses used were no longer than 50.
 
In that case, look to how you hold the camera. With its extra weight, size and mirror "slap", the way you hold it may need improving, despite not having problems with a rangefinder. I personally brace the upper part of one arm flat against my chest with the camera mashed hard into my face! Not necessarily the best way for everyone, but I find that's the best way or me to keep the camera steady.

There's no fundamental difference between using a rangefinder and an SLR though - just that the former is easier to hold steady.
 
I'm also wondering whether the effectiveness of the old but usable mirror foam may also play a part too.
 
Not knowing which lenses you used on the Leicas and the Nikkormat, this might not be a factor, but my experience is that wide open Nikkor lenses will never look like wide open Leica lenses. Not enough to matter if it happens to be a good photo in other ways, but visible all the same.
It's true as well that we get spoiled with small, light Leicas and their lack of vibration. Whatever speed you can handhold with a Leica is going to have to be one or two stops faster with an SLR. Combine that with using longer focal lengths and you have an explanation for quite a lot of blurriness.
The last factor is the act of focusing itself. A rangefinder is easy to focus, even with imperfect vision provided you use contrast rather than alignment for the final touch. Split screens and microprisms do need perfect, or corrected, vision. Of all the SLRs I've used, none have had focusing screens comparable to the microprisms found in the OM series.
Having said all that, the main reason I find myself using an SLR more often than my M2 is the convenience of seeing the DOF 'live', rather than having to imagine it the way I have to with the M2. And since I seem to be addicted to exploiting shallow DOF this is a great help and lets me concentrate on framing and composing.
 
I am generally a 50mm user in both formats and normally shooting around f4-8 which points to my technique more than anything I fear:
I am also thinking the added weight of the Nikkormat could also be playing a part.
 
No one asked, what was your shutter speed? Another relevant question, what is your age? As people age, often they have problems with shaking. A good friend can hardly hold his camera steady now compared to 5 years ago. Also have your examined your negs, not the contacts, with a loupe. Contacts aren't very sharp especially if you contact through sleeves or pages.
 
Anyway, stick it on a tripod and shoot a few (urban?) landscapes. That way you'll definitely know if the blur is your fault or not!
 
I do recall that when I moved from SLR to rangefinder I was surprised (pleasantly) at the ability to shoot quite sharp images at low shutter speeds with my Leica M3. I was quite unable to do that with SLRs. It would therefore not altogether surprise me if you were a rangefinder shooter only, before, to find that going the other way requires you to refine your shooting technique. It might also be that "stabbing" at the shutter button is a culprit which helps account for blurring at higher speeds. The release delay in older SLRs is small but can be a little noticeable and require time to adapt. You say you bought the SLR for longer lenses - your technique will be more critical here as they are more prone to the effects of release technique etc.

One thing you can try is that you can get an original Nikon accessory that screws into the shutter release collar to raise it quite considerably - these help position the finger tip nicely for a more gentle release. If you cannot find the original Nikon accessory an ordinary shutter button from ebay may help too although these are not as tall. I use the original style one on my Nikkor mat and it works a treat. The photo below appears to be similar to the original Nikon version but looks like an after market version. (I forget the Nikon accessory's official designation but I am sure someone here will know it.)

Alternatively pick up a screw in old style shutter release cable, put the camera on a tripod and run a roll through it at various speeds to see if that improves things at all. That at least will clarify if the problem is technique or something else.

EDIT here it is. It is called the AR-1 shutter release.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XNikon+AR-1+sHUTTER+RELEASE+BUTTON.TRS5&_nkw=Nikon+AR-1+sHUTTER+RELEASE+BUTTON&_sacat=0

Bower_SR773_Soft_Touch_Finger_Release_561920.jpg
Save
Save
Save


Save
Save
Save​
 
x-ray said:
No one asked, what was your shutter speed? Another relevant question, what is your age? As people age, often they have problems with shaking. A good friend can hardly hold his camera steady now compared to 5 years ago. Also have your examined your negs, not the contacts, with a loupe. Contacts aren't very sharp especially if you contact through sleeves or pages.
Click to expand...

Shutter speeds no lower than 1/60. 1/250 on average. Age 42 and in relatively good shape!
The point about viewing the contacts is a very good idea. I hadn't considered that but i've seen various degrees of sharpness/unsharpeness on the contacts when i've bracketed which again points to my technique.
 
One thing I learned early on in shooting was the position of my elbows. I started out with SLRs and quickly learned that keeping my elbows tight to my body made a tremendous difference in sharpness of images. BUT I would think that this little tidbit also applies to hand-holding a RF. Later on in my news career when I shifted to Nikons, I was able to handhold a 300mm f2.8 lens at 1/60th of a second by bracing myself against just about anything stable. I know this is very basic but, since retiring and shifting from SLRs to Fuji mirrorless (specifically my "poor man's Leica" - an X100s with a TCL-X100), I have had to adjust my technique a little due to the smaller size of the Fuji. Just food for thought....
 
seagrove said:
One thing I learned early on in shooting was the position of my elbows. I started out with SLRs and quickly learned that keeping my elbows tight to my body made a tremendous difference in sharpness of images. BUT I would think that this little tidbit also applies to hand-holding a RF. Later on in my news career when I shifted to Nikons, I was able to handhold a 300mm f2.8 lens at 1/60th of a second by bracing myself against just about anything stable. I know this is very basic but, since retiring and shifting from SLRs to Fuji mirrorless (specifically my "poor man's Leica" - an X100s with a TCL-X100), I have had to adjust my technique a little due to the smaller size of the Fuji. Just food for thought....
Click to expand...

Yes, thats very helpful advice. To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to readjusting my normal posture. I do however think that my elbows are generally braced close to my body but I could be mistaken. I also shoot a lot of verticals which may make a difference in this instance re rf vs slr.
I should add that i'm not a sharpness obsessive but some shots could obviously be sharper than they are.
 
chrism said:
Not knowing which lenses you used on the Leicas and the Nikkormat, this might not be a factor, but my experience is that wide open Nikkor lenses will never look like wide open Leica lenses. Not enough to matter if it happens to be a good photo in other ways, but visible all the same.
It's true as well that we get spoiled with small, light Leicas and their lack of vibration. Whatever speed you can handhold with a Leica is going to have to be one or two stops faster with an SLR. Combine that with using longer focal lengths and you have an explanation for quite a lot of blurriness.
The last factor is the act of focusing itself. A rangefinder is easy to focus, even with imperfect vision provided you use contrast rather than alignment for the final touch. Split screens and microprisms do need perfect, or corrected, vision. Of all the SLRs I've used, none have had focusing screens comparable to the microprisms found in the OM series.
Having said all that, the main reason I find myself using an SLR more often than my M2 is the convenience of seeing the DOF 'live', rather than having to imagine it the way I have to with the M2. And since I seem to be addicted to exploiting shallow DOF this is a great help and lets me concentrate on framing and composing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. How do you check contrast through a viewfinder that never changes regardless of the lens used (assuming different lines for different focal length lenses) or the focus point? I have used contrast successfully with SLR in low light though.
 
My guess is there are several things at play here, but one of them may be the difference in the tactile feel of the Leica shutter button vs the Nikkormat. You might be inadvertently and unknowingly moving the camera when firing it.
 
Megido,

Lots of good advice above. One of the last things many forget is that they may be discounting the differences between the Nikon and the Leica shutter release pressures, if there are any. I shot SLR a lot, and when I get the chance to take photos, normally still do. Finding a good position was quick for me as I was used to shooting weapons (was in the US Army at the time). So was holding breath when I could. As some mentioned, bracing oneself is good too. I took a photo inside a dimly lit temple by bracing my head against a wall. At 1/2 second, it was surprisingly sharp.

I guess I would simply say look at all the advice given and start experimenting. Also, see if you photos improve over time simply because you are getting stronger in your stance. That will count for a lot when using longer lenses and vertical format. It's all good, just takes time to adjust.

EDIT: I see splitimageview has already hit on part of the possible problem with depressing the shutter. I think someone else above did the same.
 
seagrove said:
One thing I learned early on in shooting was the position of my elbows. I started out with SLRs and quickly learned that keeping my elbows tight to my body made a tremendous difference in sharpness of images.
Click to expand...

Yes. Also, stand with your feet a foot or more apart; take a breath, and exhale halfway before firing the shutter; brace elbows against your sides; rest the camera in the heel of the right hand as you squeeze the shutter button gently without jerking. All these things contribute to steadiness.
 
jamin-b said:
I assume you are aware of the rule of thumb that the shutter speed should be the inverse of the lens length, i.e. for a 90mm lens the slowest shutter speed "should" be 1/90). I can't say I particularly honor the rule in practice...
Click to expand...

The reciprocal of the focal length should be the minimum speed, not the preferred one. Faster is better. So if it's a 90mm, 1/125 is useful (most cameras don't have a 1/90 speed anyway); and 1/250 is better yet (and so on). Faster film is a good idea when hand holding long lenses, to facilitate shorter exposures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom