View Full Version : Am I wasteing my time using my M6 hand held
I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.
Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.
I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.
To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.
Robert:
Check www.gallery.swannsway.ch "Nite on Ohio" for example of using Leica in low light. Many feel this is the strength of this equipment.
Johne
Erwin's test aren't the most user oriented tests, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any asa 20 film nowadays.
That said, why not put some iso800 film in your M6 and shoot at night?
Or iso100-iso400 film and shoot during the day?
Try it yourself.
A tripod is sometimes good but for street photography utterly impossible to use swiftly. A monpod would help. And many places don't allow tripods anyway.
If you want tack sharp results go medium format or larger, slap on some Zeiss lenses, use a heavy tripod and slow film. But if you want to do street photography and be able to respond to swiftly changing situations, load some fast 135 film, slap on a 35 or 50mm lens (any brand in M or LTM mount will do), and shoot shoot shoot.
telenous
01-07-2007, 10:16
Robert,
I think Johne is right to emphasize the low light performance. Handheld shots with HP5 (or TriX or any other ISO 400 film) will produce photos that have a sparkling clarity and contrast - much greater than your very eyes registered at the time. This is where M cameras and their lenses are unrivalled by any other camera and lensmaker.
For instance, the following photo was taken in so dark an environment that what you see in the photo is much more than what I was actually seeing at the time of taking it:
Oh, and it sure is NOT blasphemy to shoot colour in a Leica M6! :p
This is where M cameras and their lenses are unrivalled by any other camera and lensmaker.
May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.
And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
Sharpness is only *one* element in the quality "look" of a photo, yet somehow we keep coming back to it as the only element. Indeed if sharpness is the primary concern, then slow film + tripod + optimal aperture = greatness and you might as well shoot 4x5.
But in truth you are *not* throwing away qualities of your fine small equipment that you can *see* even with faster film, hand-held, at wide apertures. Further, with the Leica or other fine gear you have the responsiveness to capture spontaneous images and fluid situations where it's the gear of choice.
At first I wasn't going to reply, but what the heck: Use the camera any way you feel like it. If you like the results, you're not wasting your time.
Cheers,
Ed
telenous
01-07-2007, 10:37
May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.
And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
RML, the first bit is as you say. Voigtlanders and ZIs are as capable as M's, for low light. I was thinking of SLRs and medium format cameras, not other rangefinders, when I said the performance of the Ms was unrivalled for low light.
I am a little more opinionated when it comes to lenses and I have formed my preferences by using most of the lenses in question (including the superb Planar 50 ZM). For very low light I find f/1.4 practical - in fact, imperative - and that is what decided the fate of my Planar. And it is within the realm of f/1.4 and slow shutter speeds that I find the current lens offerings from Leica unrivalled, for edge to edge clarity and textural detail.
Flyfisher Tom
01-07-2007, 10:37
"Am I wasting my time using my M6 hand held ?"
Not if you can't use a tripod.
Hello:
A lens hood and a tripod are the two best investments in "sharpness" after your camera/lens. That said: hand held rf shooting is what Ms are made for and one finds images by serendipity that are different from the deliberate images taken from a tripod IMHO.
Someone will always suggest the deliberate
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=11704 .
yours
Frank
I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.
Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.
I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.
To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.
You're correct, get a MF camera if you're going to be bound to a tripod. Any camera no matter what will give sharper results with a tripod, medium to slow film and a cable release but that's not what 35mm is about whether RF or SLR.
HP-5 is excellent for low light. I'm working on a new photo documentary with religious snake handlers in appalachian churches. Last night I started shooting in the churches. Lighting is terrible with bare tungsten bulgs on the ceiling with very harsh light and small spaces to work. Exposures were 1/60 at F2 to 2.8 on HP-5 pushed to 640 in Acufine. I'm shooting with 2 Leica MP's, M6 and ZI abd flast glass. To me this is what the 35mm is all about not being mounted on a tripod. This isn't to say I don't mount my 35's on a tripod from time to time but generally the tripod is reserved for MF and LF gear.
I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.
Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.
I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.
To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.
Sure. If you are to take 'sharp pictures' you have to use a tripod. Regardless if you are using medium format or a Leica. If you are going to see the effect of the Most Expensive Optics; Leica optics, in the 135-format market - you have to use a tripod.
We had a discussion earlier here where I asked how often Leica users really used a tripod. Very seldom, was the most frequent answer. Well, then you don't need a Leica.
Medium format will, due to the size of the negative, be some 3,6 times sharper than any Leica negative simply because of the size. Regardless of tripod use or not.
May I disagree with that statement?
Any modern rf camera (like the Voigtlanders and the Zeiss Ikons) are as capable as the M6. In fact, they offer more for less, like automatic metering.
And when it comes to lenses... well, let's just say that Carl Zeiss lenses are no slouches. These lenses compete with Leica lenses on every front, and yet they cost less. Some even say that the CZ 50 is better than the current Leica Summicron 50.... :eek:
I fully agree. After neraly forty years of profesionall shooting with Leicas and Leitz glass I will say Leica had met it match in Zeiss glass and in some cases Zeiss exceeds Leicas best efforts. I shoot both the 35 Biogon and 25 Biogon and plan to replace my 90 Apo Asph Summicron shortly after the 85 F2 sonnar is available. I use a 90 at close range and the 90 AA is a disaster even compared to my old 90 Elmarit v1. I've been quite disappointed in the close performance of the 90 AA but do like it's distant performance. I still have a big stable of leica glass but Like my Zeiss better and even like my CV 28 Ultron better than any leica 28 that I've owned and find it so close to the 28 summicron that there's no practical difference. I also have a 50 Nokton and 35 Nokton that I feel are superb and selected the 35 Nokton over the 35 summilux asph. The 50 Nokton is very close in performance to my 50 asph summilux but has much better ergonomics than the asph summilux.
Weighing all factors of performance and ergonomics and disregarding price I would select the Zeiss lenses over the Leica glass today with the exception of the 50 asph summilux and 75 summilux (no Zeiss equivalent). CV lenses are so close in performance that figuring price / value / performance I would select some of the CV lenses over either Leica or Zeiss. When it really comes down to the final image on paper the differences are more in your head than on the paper. I even go back and look at my negs and prints and could not tell which images were shot with what if I hadn't shot the images myself.
In addition, if I were starting from scratch buying new RF lenses and bodies I would probably buy ZI bodies and ZM lenses without even considering price. I shoot under very poor lighting frequently and to date have not found a RF camera with aas good a RF / VF as the ZI. There's no question in my mind that it's the best opn the market in that regard.
The good thing about rangefinder photography and photography in general is that we have a choice. We can shoot using any type of film.
I use Adox CHS25, Ilford FP4, HP5 and XP2 and various colour films.
If I'm in the mood I shoot using a tripod with Adox 25asa but usually I use HP5 in winter and FP4 in summer.
I enjoy using my rangefinder cameras which are small and easy to carry. Sometimes I try to shoot with too slow a shutter speed wide open with reasonable results, sometimes poor results.
I'm happy with my photos and 35mm isn't that expensive to use.
rogue_designer
01-07-2007, 12:25
Are you wasting your time - well, if your goal is to get every iota of possible sharpness out of your lenses. Maybe.
If your goal is to get the shot.
No.
And remember - a high quality, effective image doesn't have to be critically sharp. Just sharp enough for your intent and usage.
The Leica system is fabulously 'flexible' in its application and it's this that separates it from the rest. It's good in the hand and good on a tripod. There are no rules and it's one helluva camera to use any way you want.
Great fast lenses wide open with exceptional bokeh and with slow film provides fine detail. Use it on a Saturday for hand held wedding photography and then again before sunrise on Sunday with slow film and filters on a tripod for fine detail landscapes.
The limits are in the mind of the user. For each individual application there may be a more suitable format or other essential features, but on balance and within the restrictions of 35mm film stock you cab capture great images.
I used to shoot Agfa 25 at 12 iso as standard and then add a 2 stop orange filter taking the effective speed down to 3 iso. I regularly shoot portraits with Fuji 800.
I have MF and LF as well and when I want ultimate quality and portability is not an issue I'll use those. No limits.
I agree with what many of the others have said, especially Ed. If you're happy with your results, you're not wasting your time. Rangefinders are another type of tool and are better at some things, just as a medium format kit is superior in some situations.
The bottom line is that if you're happy with the results, it really doesn't matter what test results are. Your happiness is the result that matters! :)
These days when you can pick up complete MF kits for less than £400, I think you have to have pretty good reason not to have one, if you to shoot on a tripod. As to leicas, I equate the system to tuning a car, small advantages here and there add up. Lens quality, no mirror vibration, general stealthiness, and the RF focussing add up incrementally, just as tuning a car to give 5bhp here, 5bhp there, although seemingly insignificant in isolation it can add up to a decisive advantage. One thing to remember though, rangefinders, like medium format, are specialist tools that only really have advantages over SLR's in certain situations. If you don't to some extent adapt your shooting style and even possibly your chosen subject matter to a leica's strengths you won't gain anything over conventional systems.
Leica and tripod.
One obvious reason not to associate use of Leica M and SM equipment with a tripod is the odd positioning of the socket for the tripod. Just an observation.
Johne
if you are going to use the camera on a tripod might I suggest a Hasselblad or Linhof?
Are we allowed to mention the fun factor? I have cameras to handle a range of situations, but the classic Leica M is pure joy to use. LF and MF win the resolution contest, and a Canon DSLR like the 5D can practically see in the dark (ASA 3200). The M takes the kind of picture we know, and that is the reward. :)
I do play games with flat surfaces to get the shutter speed down, so a bean bag is tempting. If tripods are part of the equation, I might as well haul out the Contax RTS III and a trunk of CZ glass.
If you are making 2x3 foot enlargements to review with a loope then you will need Kchrome25 or microfilm, and a sturdy concret block as a 'tripod'.
Puttsy is merely trying to say the lens will be better than your technique.
You will need to think about holding steady if you have an asph and are wide open. Otherwise you may as well buy a CV lens. leicas (any 35mm cams) were about hand held instant shots, HCB and Capa masters of their art in this.
If you are taking weddings you may need a medium format/tripod for the formal shots and a M7 for the candids, dust and spots would be as critical on the medium, but there wont be any spontenuaty with the medium.
The M8 sensor wont be as 'good' as the microfilm or K25, even ignoring the purple blacks, but it is quicker if you have to e-mail a photo for press, K25 is slow turn around that is why it is extinct.
Noel
Post deleted by posters request
Magus
You will recall Capa's D day landing shot, you can see the fingerprints on this?
Noel
markinlondon
01-08-2007, 02:48
I think the most distinctive fingerprint on those shots was from the drying cabinet :)
BTW, "Puttsy" :D
leicas (any 35mm cams) were about hand held instant shots, HCB and Capa masters of their art in this.
Hope you're not making that up.
So, it doesn't matter whether the tripod socket is in the centre or not ?
Tell me then, a Leica doesn't need f11 onwards, can't use K25, isn't suitable for low light, doesn't need beyond 1/8th second ? Leica could reduce the price substantially with your philosophy.
All these considered images I've been taking for all these years ...... wasted. I've been using it for more than 'snaps', god knows why. Is that what a Leica is for, 'snaps'. Hand held only for me from now on.
Is there a setting on the speed dial for 'instant" ?
rolo
There is no instant...
In early 30's the film was slower, the grain like confetti, the lenses uncoated, the glass low refractive index, if you wanted to enlarge big you had real problems, below f5.6 even the Zeiss lenses had edge problems.
The 35mm did have depth of field and HCB and Capa could use fast film, prefocus, set f11 & /250 and shoot instinctive point, like Capa's 'Death of a revolutionary', they could wind on PDQ, HCB was (reportedly) seen to use the index finger post technique, with his IIIC
35mm slowly buried roll film for reportage, for the speed/convenience.
The Hindenbury shots I've seen were still 5x4 speed graphic style, - I think.
Only one minature (ContaxII) was used by fleet street when HMS Sheffield limped back badly battle damaged Dec'39.
You can get 3rd party cradles for a central/end tripod mount.
The modern lens will need tripod/monopod (and k25 or microfilm) to show just how good they are. Sometimes I carry a monopod with my ContaxII/Kiev. You can tell the H25 is better even hand held, people use the fujichrome as it is faster turn around.
Dont know about the M8...
Noel
Are we allowed to mention the fun factor? I have cameras to handle a range of situations, but the classic Leica M is pure joy to use.
I'll be hanged for this but... I'm selling my M2 because I hate the camera. It's a fine camera, no doubt, but when it comes to usability for me it sucks rotten eggs.
Having said that, however, the fingerprints of the Leitz / Leica and the CV lenses are worlds apart...
You persist in using language like this, yet offer no evidence. If, as you say, the difference is so strong as "worlds apart" then anyone should be able to see it, right?
And if only YOU can see the difference, then what you say doesn't apply to other people, correct?
I own CV and Leica glass, and I worked in a camera rental house, manning the lens collimator, and I don't know what you mean by your choice of words.
You persist in using language like this, yet offer no evidence. If, as you say, the difference is so strong as "worlds apart" then anyone should be able to see it, right?
And if only YOU can see the difference, then what you say doesn't apply to other people, correct?
I don't think those worlds are in this universe. The differences in modern CV, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and leica glass are very slight if any. Most differences are in the mind of the shooter not the lenses.
I look back at thousands of negatives (B&W) shot over 40 years with leica, Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Minolta lenses from vintage to new and can only tell in a few megatives which were shot with what. If I didn't know what equipment I was shooting at the time i would not know that they had been shot with different equipment.
rolo
There is no instant...
Dont know about the M8...
Noel
hey Noel,
I'm not suggesting that the M isn't ideal for wide aperture, fast film, hand held shooting, because I think the opposite. It is the best tool available for documentary work and in B&W the output is superb.
However, within the constraints of 35mm film enlargement it is also good for other applications - landscapes, formal portraits where a slower approach is needed. As a consequence, it is one fabulous all-round camera.
Are there better cameras for these applications - sure, but it's not always feasible to carry an LF kit about. My LF pack weighs 30 lbs and is stored in a LowePro Super Trekker; so I take the MP on biking trips in Europe and do what I can to max IQ.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Rolo
We agree with one another, but the original post was about should he use a MF/LF.
Answer yes if he can. Leicia M7 good for fast changing action e.g. at weddings but M8 cheaper and even more convenient, although lower quality.
35mm has always been about fast changing action, only today the lenses will need tripod and microfilm/K25 to see their limitatons.
Technology has moved on from 30s, and K25 is a thing of the past...
Noel
Rolo
We agree with one another, but the original post was about should he use a MF/LF.
Answer yes if he can. Leicia M7 good for fast changing action e.g. at weddings but M8 cheaper and even more convenient, although lower quality.
35mm has always been about fast changing action, only today the lenses will need tripod and microfilm/K25 to see their limitatons.
Technology has moved on from 30s, and K25 is a thing of the past...
Noel
That's good.
I read some of the threads and get the impression that some would restrict the M's to hand held if they could.
I use the MP & M3 for weddings and shoot say 12 rolls of film at each, perhaps 4x a month. So I know what it's like to gently exhale whilst shooting 800 asa film at 1/8 second with my Summilux wide open.
Equally, I use the MP for landscapes with slow film, sometimes after dusk. For small prints, the M's do a great job. My Mamiya 7 will do a better job, it just needs to be on the tripod earlier in the day.
shutterflower
01-09-2007, 08:38
I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.
Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.
I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.
To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.
Ha ha. The soul of RF photography has nothing to do with tripods. Of course they help control camera shake, but if you are going in that direction, you might as well buy into medium format. 35mm RF is about small, inconspicuous shooting tools.
Buy the Mamiya 7 series for sure. Actually, if I was going to do only landscapes and only on tripods, I would go back to 4x5.
Rolo
I've a third party crate (central tripod mount) and always try and carry monopod, alas frequently i have to brace against a wall or hang on to a lamp post. I'll go down to 1/8 sec but subject movement is normally too extreme, e.g. ten out of ten rejects.
The RB67 or TLR just too too heavy other than in a car (auto) boot (trunk).
None of my leitz lenses are modern high performance asphs, youngest is '77. Putsy's comments and graphs are not good for my optics, his views are resonable, I wont go larger than f4 unless the speed blur is going to mask the softness off axis.
Noel
shutterflower
01-09-2007, 11:51
Rolo
[...]
Putsy's comments and graphs are not good for my optics, his views are resonable, I wont go larger than f4 unless the speed blur is going to mask the softness off axis.
Noel
very unusual use of words there. Just a very unique use of English.
shutterflower
01-09-2007, 11:56
hey Noel,
I'm not suggesting that the M isn't ideal for wide aperture, fast film, hand held shooting, because I think the opposite. It is the best tool available for documentary work and in B&W the output is superb.
However, within the constraints of 35mm film enlargement it is also good for other applications - landscapes, formal portraits where a slower approach is needed. As a consequence, it is one fabulous all-round camera.
Are there better cameras for these applications - sure, but it's not always feasible to carry an LF kit about. My LF pack weighs 30 lbs and is stored in a LowePro Super Trekker; so I take the MP on biking trips in Europe and do what I can to max IQ.
Just wanted to clear that up.
I have never found an instance where 6x4.5 format negs have produced less than adequate detail. Of course, I've never once enlarged beyond 13x19. I have owned two 4x5 cameras in the past, and really I wouldn't go back to 4x5 again. I might buy a Fuji 6x9 camera before I would go back to large format.
As far as the best tool for journalistic photography, for hand helds, and all that, I would also say that going with something like a Mamiya 6 or Bronica RF645 or Plaubel Makina would be a fine choice. The RF645 is only marginally larger than a Leica, but the format offers a great deal of useful square centimeters - and having aperture priority is a great thing.
i didn't read the whole thread, so maybe what i'm about to add is already here,..
here goes anyway..
I read on the internet and magazines that the only way to get the best from a Leica is to use slow film and mount the camera on a tripod.
magazines and the internet aren't excactly the most reliable sources, for anything, really. especially something that one has to figure out for him/herself.
Reading Edwin Puts review 4 on the M8 he has done this to compare an M8 to a film Leica. Using 20 ASA B&W film, the results are stunning with more detail than the M8.
i can't comment on this, gave up reading his site years ago. namely because of what i just said above.
I usually use HP5 and the results obtained would look no different from any reasonable camera.
which puts you in the same position as probably 99% of leica owners, you need to be one seriously talented, experienced etc. photographer to "need" a leica, quality wise. otoh, and this i understand quite well, it is a true joy to work with.
To achieve excellent results from a camera going the tripod way, would it not just be as handy using medium format equipment like a Mamiya 7.
of course. and give you much "better" photos too,... ehh, at least as far as sharpness, resolution and smooth tonality go. then, my excellent results, and your excellent results might consist of many very different things. for example, i can't stand barrel distortion in certain kinds of shots, which should take me to the mamyia 7 system, you might not give a damn. otoh i don't mind a bit of grain every now and then, and you might hate it... so, why should you listen to me ,-) which is my point, no one can tell you, internet publications or magazines, net forums, me, the guy/girl who replied before me.... (but i'd find it strange, to - on the quest for the ultimate photographic quality - begin to use a tripod, .... with a 35mm camera. leica or not)
[QUOTE=Dougg]Sharpness is only *one* element in the quality "look" of a photo, yet somehow we keep coming back to it as the only element. Indeed if sharpness is the primary concern, then slow film + tripod + optimal aperture = greatness and you might as well shoot 4x5.
/QUOTE]
An awful lot of "street photography" was done with 4x5. Big negative and fast film. That's where the "speed" in Speed Graphic came from.
A great deal of "street imaging" was and is done with charcoal for that matter. (here we get into the charcoal vs. pencil argument)
Street photography means you go out of the cave with a skin and a burnt stick and capture a moment. (alright, "trail photography" since streets weren't invented for another 10,000 years)
Perhaps not the same as candid photography in a smoky saloon?
Rolo
I've a third party crate (central tripod mount) and always try and carry monopod, alas frequently i have to brace against a wall or hang on to a lamp post. I'll go down to 1/8 sec but subject movement is normally too extreme, e.g. ten out of ten rejects.
The RB67 or TLR just too too heavy other than in a car (auto) boot (trunk).
None of my leitz lenses are modern high performance asphs, youngest is '77. Putsy's comments and graphs are not good for my optics, his views are resonable, I wont go larger than f4 unless the speed blur is going to mask the softness off axis.
Noel
Your return can be improved on. I will shoot wide open for 1/8s and expect a 50% satisfactory result. Half the failures are because of subject movement. Always take more than one frame in these circumstances. Also, underexpose by 1 stop at 1/15s to improve hit rate. Exhaling when exposing helps a little and shutter finger action is vital; you have to squeeze it and also make sure the camera is pressed firmly against your forehead/fingers. Its too easy to treat it 'lightly', whereas I need to treat it more firmly.
Buy the Leica Table Top Tripod which can be used freestanding for perfect exposure, or pressed into your chest for near certain sharp results at 1/8s.
Finally, the Abrahamson Softie is helpful in squeezing that shutter release.
New lenses are much sharper than ancient lenses in my experience and might make a difference for you.
Attached is the very forst shot I took with a new 50mm Summilux (not Asph) @ f1.4, hand held for 1/8th second at 0.7m. On scanning, I discovered that DoF is pretty shallow at this setting.
Rolo
The whole point of Leica Ms is that like all small 35mm RF they allow for very discreet and spontaneous handheld shooting and excel at low light work. Therefore how could you possibly be wasting your time shooting a camera in precisely the niche it was designed for and has been king of for the last half century? This stands for all 35mm RFs. Forgetting bodies for a moment, Leica lenses are superb, especially around the wider apertures where many lenses really struggle regardless of shutter spesed. If you spend your whole time shootting 1/500 at f8 or f11, many lense will give leicas lenses a run for their money. If shooting at f2 or f2.8, few will come close. The Zeises ZMs are superb and I own both brands, however it seems to be consensus that that 35 asph has the 35 biogon beaten at f2-2.8, but whether that is worth another $1000 is up to you! The same seems to be consensus for the 50 lux and the 50 1.5 sonnar or 50 Nokton, but again there is a huge price difference.
The seamless handling, small size and quietness when combined with first rate lenses is great where a 35mm is the right tool: Handheld. If shooting off a tripod I would say that a larger format would make a lot of sense and fortthe cost of a 50 lux you could buy a hole MF or LF outfit! My old Rolleicord whipped the pants off anything 35mm could offer, but then again off tripod it was a pig! Horses for courses.
Ronald M
01-12-2007, 18:26
Not if you push/pull the camera against your head, tighten the strap, place your feet properly, keep the elbows down, and release the shutter slowly.
If you can not do it, you rish less than perfect results. But frequently they are just fine. Infinitly better than a Pentax, Cannon, or Nikon without mirror dampening, just a foam strip.
scottgee1
01-12-2007, 19:12
No one seems to have explicitly mentioned this, so I will.
Any camera without a moving mirror improves the chances of getting a sharper image at low shutter speeds. Yes, SLRs can lock the mirror but that makes spontaneous shooting a bit difficult.
35mm offers the fastest lenses overall and thus is the tool of choice for many photographers who shoot in low light. Bill Allard says he makes a lot of his exposures in the "Hail Mary" range of 1/4 to 1/2 second, usually wide open with Leica lenses. IMO, his work is extraordinary.
If there was a compact MF system with fast lenses and leaf shutters, it would, as Olsen points out, provide technical results superior to any 35mm system. Unfortunately, that system does not exist and likely never will. As nice as the Bronica 645 and Mamiya 6/7 are, the lenses are slow.
Arguably, the best cameras for handheld shooting are those with fast lenses and leaf shutters. Assuming quality optics, a smooth shutter release and good technique, those should provide the best chance of minimum vibration and maximum sharpness -- it that's what you want.
my two lux worth. YMMV :D
ScottGee1
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.