Hand-held photography w/ Leica M3 and slow lenses

<p>How great is the advantage shooting hand-held photography with an M3 as opposed to SLR?<br>

With a wide-angle lens of F4 (e.g. Super Angulon F4 21mm) would it realistically be possible to expect to do much or any hand-held shooting? I like the size, weight and cost of this lens but am thinking I'm being too optimistic considering I prefer handheld, available light photography. <br>

Thank you.</p><div></div>

<p>IMHO opinion with a rangefinder camera you should be able to handhold with slower speeds than a Single Lens Reflex. With a Leica M3 with 21mm lens attached, a speed of between 1/15 and 1/30th should be no problem with elbows pulled in and "hold your breath" attitude, all the while very slowly depressing the shutter release. I did a 1/8 second with f4.5 using a Bessa L (Voigtlander-Cosina) and 15mm Heliar on infinity at La Salette Christmas display in Attleboro, MA USA with thousands of lights at night and got acceptable images with very little shutter shake.</p>

<p>Yesterday I was shooting handheld in dreary weather at 1/25 with a large DSLR and big lens. With my Leica M I would have probably had 25% more keepers (I tossed 10 out of 70 shots). If you're reasonably good shooting handheld, that is you've developed and honed your muscles, learned proper breathing techniques, learned proper shutter release techniques, and stayed off caffeine for the day....there's no reason you shouldn't be able to hand hold slow slow shutter shots with the Leica M more effectively than with a SLR or DSLR...you don't have mirror slap to contend with (unless you're using a Visoflex). The advantage, forgetting the ads and hype, is simply most often the developed skills of the photographer. And, IMHO, it will always fall behind the same shot done from a tripod up to somewhere around 1/300 sec. That's because people have slight "tremors" just from the blood circulating thru their systems which has a demonstrable effect at lower speeds. Erwin Puts says 1/500 but concedes that occasionally 1/200 is indistinguishable from tripod work.</p>

<p>An f/4 lens is hardly suited to the common available light subjects. Besides, the Super Angulon is most often used for outdoors work. No reason why it cannot be used indoors, of course, or in relatively low light.</p>

<p>My experience was that a Canon FTb and a Leica M3 were about the same where slow speeds were concerned. I routinely went down to 1/8 sec. and even 1/4 sec. with both cameras using normal and wide lenses. Stephen Lewis sets out the need for proper technique. I'll only add that I have not known coffee to be antithetical to longish hand-held exposures.</p>

A new Zeiss 21mm Biogon would be a better choice, but that's just my opinion. Very sharp lens, probably

higher in contrast than the Super Angulon, similar cost.

<p>It's all up to you, ADH. Some photographers are human tripods and others couldn't get a sharp handheld image of a stationary subject at 1/500 sec. You have to access and hone your own technique. Sharp images are definitely possible in low available light from a handheld Leica mounted with a "slow" lens.</p>

<p>There are some braces that might help you if you are shaky handed. My favorite is the German made foldable <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=22355244">Schiansky Staticfix - 203</a> shoulder brace and of course the Leica tabletop tripod with small ballhead used as a chest pod.</p>

<p>The Staticfix - 203 is out of production, but are sometimes found on eBay for almost nothing. They are really superb inventions and fold flat when the plastic tubes covering the hinged supports near the "elbow" are pulled up allowing the apparatus to fold compactly. I've had the one pictured below since 1968. The whole contraption twists right or left for vertical or horizontal shots. If you find one, grab it.</p><div></div>

<p>I used to be able to hand hold a Linhof down to 1/4 sec, a Leica at a similar speed. Now, older, I never hand hold below 1/60. It is a question of how old and steady you are. When hand holding a 35mm camera for a vertical, brace both elbows against your chest. Do not fly one in the air in the commonly used position.</p>

<p>I'm 60, Bruce, and I can still fairly reliably hold my M3 down to 1/10 sec., or 1/5 sec. if there's no option. No idea how long I'll remain steady, of course. I like to think that plenty of coffee helps.</p>

<p>I have routinely handheld SLRs down to 1/30 without giving it much thought, and have shot 1/15 and occasionally 1/8 if properly braced, holding my breath, shooting something not moving. Whatever speed you can go down to with an SLR you should theoretically do better with a rangefinder because you take mirror slap out of the equation. Also, a 21mm is much more foregiving than a longer lens. What film speed are you using? I rarely use anything slower than 400 (usually Tri-X). If you're shooting something slower, keep in mind that today's 400-speed films, especially Kodak TMax or Ilford Delta, are finer grained and sharper than even a 100 speed film from the days the M3 was made.</p>

<p>Until a year ago I used ASA 100 film, but I am now on ASA 400. As you say, emulsions are much improved: and I can get prints of adequate quality up to 12" x 18". I have not tried anything larger.<br>

I was speaking of 50mm and 35mm lenses. With my 85mm I have not tried to make an exposure slower than 1/30 sec.<br>

While it is true that, logically, the presence or absence of a mirror should make a difference, my experience was that RFDR and SLR cameras are much the same. SLR makers go to some trouble to reduce the effect of the flipping mirror. I once used an Exacta from the 1940s, and the damn thing literally jumped.</p>

<p>When there's no mirror slap, it's a tremendous advantage: here's a shot I took at the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art with a Hasselblad SWC/M (no mirror), handheld at 1/15 @ 1:4.5</p><div></div>

<p>No one seems to have yet mentioned the 1/focal length rule.<br>

For 135 format, the minimum shutter speed for hand-held without noticeable shake is 1/focal length of the lens.<br>

So for a 35mm lens, the minimum shutter speed is 1/35s (1/30s should do). For a 90mm lens, it's 1/90s (so use 1/125).<br>

This is what the x-stop advantage that shake-reduction lenses/cameras are about. For a camera with a shake reduction of say 3 stops, the minimum shutter speed of a 90mm lens becomes 90->45->22.5->11.25. So say 1/15s.<br>

For other formats, you have to convert it to 135 format. So for an aps-c camera, multiply the focal length by 1.5. For 120 film cameras, divide by 2.<br>

Obviously there are limits to this rule, such as excessive enlargements, very slow shutter speeds, very shaky hands, etc.</p>