russelljtdyer
Writer
The idea of using a micro four-thirds camera with m-mount lenses seemed like a good one. However, camera shake has ruined the experience for me. If I use my Lumix GF-1 with a Voigtlander adapter and my Zeiss ZM f/2 50mm lens outside in full sunlight, I can get marvelous digital photos. However, if it's a dim day or if I try to take pictures indoors without plenty of light or a flash, the results are terrible. Because a standard 50mm lens is equivalent to about a 100mm lens on a 35mm film camera, everything seems exaggerated, including the camera shake, which ruins all of my photos. The camera works fine if I use one of Panasonic's lenses with image stabilization, but not with a manual focus lens without it.
As an alternative, I can set the ISO very high, but that leads to too much noise in the images. Another alternative is to use a flash when indoors, but that's not always desirable. Plus, a flash won't always have much of an effect outdoors. The best way to eliminate camera shake, of course, is to use a tripod. However, that's not always a convenient choice.
Watching the news recently, I saw a politician surrounded by reporters and photographers. One of the photographers held up his camera with two hands over the reporters in front of him to take a picture of the politician. He had a flash bracket attached to the bottom of his camera, without a flash. He was using the flash bracket as a handle. It was on the screen for less than a second, but it caught my attention. It occurred to me that it would help to steady the camera.
Tonight I decided to test this theory. Below are four shots of books on my bookcase. The lighting is just from a single halogen light bouncing off of the ceiling--no flash. The lens is the Zeiss ZM f/2 50mm lens, with the aperture set to f/2. Since I'm photographing these book spines at a perpendicular angle, I don't have to worry about depth of field. The shutter for all four shots is 1/25 of a second and the ISO is at 200.
This first shot is done with me holding the camera in front of me, using the LCD screen to focus and frame the shot. You can see that there's plenty of camera shake.
This second shot above is using the electronic view finder (EVF), holding the camera up against my face. There's still camera shake, but it's much better bracing it as one does with the EVF. However, the viewing through the EVF is not very pleasant after several photos.
This third one is done using a small hand bracket and holding the camera in front of me, using the LCD screen for focusing and framing. It's a close call between using an EVF and a flash bracket. However, I think the bracket is a bit steadier. I've tried multiple times to shoot this photo under these four basic arrangements--so as to make sure that it was me shaking more one time than the other. The results almost always came out the same: the EVF is always a bit better, but sometimes much better than nothing. And the flash bracket is always much better than nothing, and sometimes noticeable better than the EVF. I did try both the EVF and the flash bracket together, but the combination didn't seem to affect the results.
This last one is done with a tripod. It's a very clear image. If I have the time and all to set up a tripod, it obviously gives the best results without image stabilization or bright lighting (e.g., a flash). However, I think the best balance between image quality and most convenient method in low lighting may be to use a flash bracket like I did in the third photo above.
Above is a shot of the camera with the small flash bracket I used. It's not very big, but it is appropriate for the size of the camera and it widens the base enough to minimize the results of my hands shaking slightly. It seems awkward looking, having a flash bracket without a flash attached, but the results are better and it's easier to handle the camera even when not shooting.
As an alternative, I can set the ISO very high, but that leads to too much noise in the images. Another alternative is to use a flash when indoors, but that's not always desirable. Plus, a flash won't always have much of an effect outdoors. The best way to eliminate camera shake, of course, is to use a tripod. However, that's not always a convenient choice.
Watching the news recently, I saw a politician surrounded by reporters and photographers. One of the photographers held up his camera with two hands over the reporters in front of him to take a picture of the politician. He had a flash bracket attached to the bottom of his camera, without a flash. He was using the flash bracket as a handle. It was on the screen for less than a second, but it caught my attention. It occurred to me that it would help to steady the camera.
Tonight I decided to test this theory. Below are four shots of books on my bookcase. The lighting is just from a single halogen light bouncing off of the ceiling--no flash. The lens is the Zeiss ZM f/2 50mm lens, with the aperture set to f/2. Since I'm photographing these book spines at a perpendicular angle, I don't have to worry about depth of field. The shutter for all four shots is 1/25 of a second and the ISO is at 200.
This first shot is done with me holding the camera in front of me, using the LCD screen to focus and frame the shot. You can see that there's plenty of camera shake.
This second shot above is using the electronic view finder (EVF), holding the camera up against my face. There's still camera shake, but it's much better bracing it as one does with the EVF. However, the viewing through the EVF is not very pleasant after several photos.
This third one is done using a small hand bracket and holding the camera in front of me, using the LCD screen for focusing and framing. It's a close call between using an EVF and a flash bracket. However, I think the bracket is a bit steadier. I've tried multiple times to shoot this photo under these four basic arrangements--so as to make sure that it was me shaking more one time than the other. The results almost always came out the same: the EVF is always a bit better, but sometimes much better than nothing. And the flash bracket is always much better than nothing, and sometimes noticeable better than the EVF. I did try both the EVF and the flash bracket together, but the combination didn't seem to affect the results.
This last one is done with a tripod. It's a very clear image. If I have the time and all to set up a tripod, it obviously gives the best results without image stabilization or bright lighting (e.g., a flash). However, I think the best balance between image quality and most convenient method in low lighting may be to use a flash bracket like I did in the third photo above.
Above is a shot of the camera with the small flash bracket I used. It's not very big, but it is appropriate for the size of the camera and it widens the base enough to minimize the results of my hands shaking slightly. It seems awkward looking, having a flash bracket without a flash attached, but the results are better and it's easier to handle the camera even when not shooting.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Nice idea of attaching a bracket to limit the impact of hand shake by increasing the mass of the whole system. However, the problem is not really new, it has been around since the advent of hand-held cameras. How did you shoot before you got a Micro 4/3 camera?
I think the problem is not that the FOV becomes smaller, the problem is that you insist on shooting at low shutter speeds regardless. Instead of shooting what is effectively a 100mm-FOV lens at 1/25, you could shoot at 1/100 at ISO 800 and avoid much of the problem, while still remaining in comfortable ISO ranges. Camera shake and/or running around with a bracket attached to what is otherwise a nice small camera tend to ruin the shooting experience in a much more significant way than the step from ISO 200 to 800 does, at least on a halfway modern camera.
Alternatively, if for some reason you do need to shoot indoors with tele lenses at low ISO a lot, you could get a camera with in-body image stabilization; in that case your next M4/3 camera should be an Olympus.
I think the problem is not that the FOV becomes smaller, the problem is that you insist on shooting at low shutter speeds regardless. Instead of shooting what is effectively a 100mm-FOV lens at 1/25, you could shoot at 1/100 at ISO 800 and avoid much of the problem, while still remaining in comfortable ISO ranges. Camera shake and/or running around with a bracket attached to what is otherwise a nice small camera tend to ruin the shooting experience in a much more significant way than the step from ISO 200 to 800 does, at least on a halfway modern camera.
Alternatively, if for some reason you do need to shoot indoors with tele lenses at low ISO a lot, you could get a camera with in-body image stabilization; in that case your next M4/3 camera should be an Olympus.
RichardP
Member
You don't mention what you were doing about your breathing.
pvdhaar
Peter
Thanks for this neat idea russelljtdyer !
I've had a similar challenge with a 50mm lens on a NEX. Not only does the arms out shooting position cause blurred images, it also makes the LCD image jittery to the point where I get seasick. In the end, I just gave up, but using a flash bracket may breathe new life into the 50 again!
I've had a similar challenge with a 50mm lens on a NEX. Not only does the arms out shooting position cause blurred images, it also makes the LCD image jittery to the point where I get seasick. In the end, I just gave up, but using a flash bracket may breathe new life into the 50 again!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Breathing? Are you meant to breathe? 
I hold my breath when shooting. Mind you, with long exposures it does introduce another set of problems - more to do with falling down, rather than shaking.
This is starting to sound like a religious practice, isn't it?
Seriously though, higher shutter speeds are called for apart from anything else you might experiment with.
I hold my breath when shooting. Mind you, with long exposures it does introduce another set of problems - more to do with falling down, rather than shaking.
This is starting to sound like a religious practice, isn't it?
Seriously though, higher shutter speeds are called for apart from anything else you might experiment with.
russelljtdyer
Writer
I am minding my breathing properly. The photos were each taken with the same breathing techniques. As for increasing the ISO, the amount of noise is very high from 400 and up. Since the lens aperture is at f/2, I don't see that decreasing the shutter duration is an option if my meter reading already shows my exposure level is right Incidentally, I had the camera mode set to aperture priority.
As for what I do with cameras that are not micro four-thirds format, I'm able to hold them, differently. I don't have this much shake when I use the same lens with my Leica CL. With that camera, I have a true view finder and can hold my arms in and brace the camera against my cheek.
As I mentioned in the original post, I think the problem with the GF1 and an m-mount lens is a few things combined: no image stabilization; a standard lens effectively becomes a telephoto lens; a lack of an agreeable view finder that can work in conjunction with focusing; and a small size causing one to keep one's hands close together, thus exaggerating movement at the lens center.
Another alternative that I didn't mention would be to use an optical viewfinder. I don't have one to be able to include its effects in my test shots. Besides the additional cost, it would require me to focus with the LCD screen and then to move myself forward to look through the optical view finder, so as not to reposition the camera out of focus while trying to compose the shot. However, I should think it would at least do as well as the EVF and not be as wearing on the eyes.
As for what I do with cameras that are not micro four-thirds format, I'm able to hold them, differently. I don't have this much shake when I use the same lens with my Leica CL. With that camera, I have a true view finder and can hold my arms in and brace the camera against my cheek.
As I mentioned in the original post, I think the problem with the GF1 and an m-mount lens is a few things combined: no image stabilization; a standard lens effectively becomes a telephoto lens; a lack of an agreeable view finder that can work in conjunction with focusing; and a small size causing one to keep one's hands close together, thus exaggerating movement at the lens center.
Another alternative that I didn't mention would be to use an optical viewfinder. I don't have one to be able to include its effects in my test shots. Besides the additional cost, it would require me to focus with the LCD screen and then to move myself forward to look through the optical view finder, so as not to reposition the camera out of focus while trying to compose the shot. However, I should think it would at least do as well as the EVF and not be as wearing on the eyes.
ankaka
-
I got a lot to learn from you man. Thanks for posting!
kanzlr
Hexaneur
noise with the GF1 should only be high in underexposed areas. Properly exposed, ISO 800 should be clean enough for most print sizes.
sanmich
Veteran
this is what I would do with the same issue:
http://www.instructables.com/id/1-Camera-Image-Stabilizer/
http://www.instructables.com/id/1-Camera-Image-Stabilizer/
kanzlr
Hexaneur
and this is what I would do:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-FL500-External-Digital-Camera/dp/B000GBSA14
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-FL500-External-Digital-Camera/dp/B000GBSA14
rbelyell
Well-known
imo there is no 'technique' that can solve the issue of focusing on lcd. it is impossible to do even semi serious work this way. my solution was to avoid the problem by using olly m4/3 which has IBIS, coupled with its external vf, which DOES allow for technique to effect performance. this provides a wholly different experience than the panny and preserves the essential compact nature of the m4/3 system. imo there is no reason to go m4/3 if one destroys the compact unobtrusive nature of the system.
russelljtdyer
Writer
Just a Suggestion
Just a Suggestion
I appreciate the suggestions of a different camera. However, I already own a Panasonic GF1. I don't remember why I didn't want the Olympus with it's built in image stabilization. Nevertheless, the GF1 is what I have and many others here own one too. One of the reasons I bought the GF1, or a micro four-thirds camera, is to have a digital camera to go with my m-mount lenses, as well as to have sometimes a small camera (i.e., using the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens). Since I wanted a digital camera for my m-mount lenses, an alternative would have been to buy a Leica M9, but that costs a good bit more.
My solution presented in this thread is not necessarily the best and only solution. It's just one which I stumbled upon that works given my choices in equipment and conditions: that is to say, a GF1 camera with a Zeiss ZM lens used in low light without a flash or tripod. I'm just sharing this idea for those who had not thought of it and have been frustrated with the possibilities that don't always work out the way we want--like for Peter above. If you don't mind using a flash, good. If you can and are willing to set up a tripod, fine. If you'd rather just use one of Panasonic's lenses with image stabilization, that works too. Maybe you don't mind a little grain in a photo. Or if you want to use a camera better suited for the conditions, that's an excellent alternative (look at the last photo of my GF1, taken under the same lighting conditions with a Canon EOS 5DII dslr camera and a Zeiss ZE f/1.4 50mm lens, handheld). The idea of using a flash bracket without a flash is just a suggestion that some might not have considered.
Just a Suggestion
I appreciate the suggestions of a different camera. However, I already own a Panasonic GF1. I don't remember why I didn't want the Olympus with it's built in image stabilization. Nevertheless, the GF1 is what I have and many others here own one too. One of the reasons I bought the GF1, or a micro four-thirds camera, is to have a digital camera to go with my m-mount lenses, as well as to have sometimes a small camera (i.e., using the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens). Since I wanted a digital camera for my m-mount lenses, an alternative would have been to buy a Leica M9, but that costs a good bit more.
My solution presented in this thread is not necessarily the best and only solution. It's just one which I stumbled upon that works given my choices in equipment and conditions: that is to say, a GF1 camera with a Zeiss ZM lens used in low light without a flash or tripod. I'm just sharing this idea for those who had not thought of it and have been frustrated with the possibilities that don't always work out the way we want--like for Peter above. If you don't mind using a flash, good. If you can and are willing to set up a tripod, fine. If you'd rather just use one of Panasonic's lenses with image stabilization, that works too. Maybe you don't mind a little grain in a photo. Or if you want to use a camera better suited for the conditions, that's an excellent alternative (look at the last photo of my GF1, taken under the same lighting conditions with a Canon EOS 5DII dslr camera and a Zeiss ZE f/1.4 50mm lens, handheld). The idea of using a flash bracket without a flash is just a suggestion that some might not have considered.
robert blu
quiet photographer
New ideas for "usual" problems are always welcome , thanks for your suggestion.
robert
robert
rbelyell
Well-known
absolutely russell, it is indeed one solution. i myself started out with an ep1 which didnt allow for a vf, and so presented some of these same issues. i just traded it in for an ep2, on which btw i do use M mount leses as well. as technology outruns our equipment more and more rapidly, the idea of buying and selling gear to better suit one's style, comfort or technical desires is increasingly common and less and less onerous.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The old hand-held rule ... shoot at 1/focal-length as a minimum ... was defined for 35mm format film cameras (no image stabilization). For mFT format, you need to modify that to 1/2*focal-length to obtain the same consistency in stabilizing the camera. By this rule, a 50mm lens on Micro-FourThirds camera should imply keeping the exposure time shorter than 1/100 second for good results hand-held, which of course is problematic in low light situations.
If you're not willing to work at ISO 800 or above (when I was shooting with the Panasonic G1, I found excellent results with proper exposure up to ISO 800 easily, and with some work up to ISO 1000) then yes, you need some sort of rig to stabilize the camera for longer exposures. A grip and bracket can help some, breathing helps, a tripod or copy stand is best.
With the G1 using a 40mm lens, I'd consistently get better results at ISO 400@1/60 second than at ISO 200@1/30 second exposures. The little bit more noise at ISO 800 was almost literally invisible in prints so I had no issues pushing the ISO another stop when light levels dropped further. After that, for critically sharp work, I went to a tripod.
If you're not willing to work at ISO 800 or above (when I was shooting with the Panasonic G1, I found excellent results with proper exposure up to ISO 800 easily, and with some work up to ISO 1000) then yes, you need some sort of rig to stabilize the camera for longer exposures. A grip and bracket can help some, breathing helps, a tripod or copy stand is best.
With the G1 using a 40mm lens, I'd consistently get better results at ISO 400@1/60 second than at ISO 200@1/30 second exposures. The little bit more noise at ISO 800 was almost literally invisible in prints so I had no issues pushing the ISO another stop when light levels dropped further. After that, for critically sharp work, I went to a tripod.
Sparrow
Veteran
bugger the photos: what is that penguin book who's title ends in " ...for sole" and why isn't it there in the last photo?
russelljtdyer
Writer
Stewart,
The name of that book is "A Gun for Sale." It's by Graham Greene, along with all of the books in the shot. I like Greene's works very much. Thanks for noticing and asking.
-Russell
The name of that book is "A Gun for Sale." It's by Graham Greene, along with all of the books in the shot. I like Greene's works very much. Thanks for noticing and asking.
-Russell
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You bought the wrong brand of 4/3rd body
Oly's has IN BODY sensor stabilization that works.
Oly's has IN BODY sensor stabilization that works.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Well ... IBIS can stabilize the camera against movement at slow shutter speeds, but can't stabilize the subject at slow shutter speeds, in which case high ISO is a more effective strategy, permitting a shutter speed increase.
I suppose low noise at high ISO (via an improved sensor) buys more performance in this regard than image stabilization, regardless of method.
~Joe
I suppose low noise at high ISO (via an improved sensor) buys more performance in this regard than image stabilization, regardless of method.
~Joe
rbelyell
Well-known
well, the m8 and m9 have pretty good sensors, but dont do well in low light either. the original post described camera shake, not subject shake, as the problem. the solution is IBIS and focusing through a vf classically braced against one's head. or the OP' solution.