Camera Shake in Medium Format

I was recently photographing with a Zeiss Ikonta C having a 105mm lens. Two the photos are tack sharp, the

remaining six other were blurred. After thinking about what I had been doing with the camera, I remembered that

the six blurred frames were taken with a shutter speed less than 1/100 sec. I am sure all recall the rule of

thumb that recommends a minimum shutter speed that is the reciprocal (meaning if the focal length of the lens in

use is 100mm the minimum shutter speed should be 1/125 sec.) of the focal length of the lens to avoid camera

shake when taking a handheld photo. I was arguing to a photographer friend that while this rule of thumb

originated with 35mm film it is equally applicable to medium format. He argued that it did not. Who is correct?

Thanks.

<p>I can't really contribute to your arguement... but I know from well-established experience that a camera support of some kind is much mroe important wiht MF than 35mm. I use a tripod when possible, a monopod in most other situations, and really fast shutter speeds if neither can be used.</p>

<p>I think that the rule of thumb you mention is a reasonable rough guide for 35mm, but with medium format less applicable. A lot depends on the type of camera - for example a TLR with a leaf shutter would be slightly easier to hand hold than one with a focal plain shutter and a large mirror and a rear auxilliary shutter. So I would say that no, it doesn't apply to medium format.</p>

<p>Case 1: If you consider that all smaller format photos can be considered crops of larger format ones taken with the same focal length lens, then the rule does apply equally to medium format - if you want no more than X microns of image shake on the negative/slide itself.</p>

<p>Case 2: If OTOH you want no more than Y microns of image shake on a print or projected slide of a given size, then it does not apply. The medium format image is enlarged less, so it can tolerate a little more shake at that focal length. </p>

<p>Case 3: If you are intent on applying the same enlargement magnification factor (e.g. 10x) when printing from the two formats, then we are back to Case 1 again. It does apply.</p>

<p>It's all a question of magnification of the image with respect to its captured size.</p>

<p>If you're seeing unsharpness, the best and easiest solution is a tripod or at least a monopod.</p>

<p>Larger format <em>can</em> offer a little more leeway on user vibration. After all, the old folding and box cameras with up to 6x9cm images often had "Instant" settings of around 1/30 of a second. Sometimes Granma was actually recognizable.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

The large Ikonta Cs are a bit awkward to hand hold,'compared to the Ikonta As and Bs; that might account for the blur

<p>If I am shooting medium format handheld, I almost always use 1/250 minimum shutter speed. With tripod or monopod, I use slower shutter speeds. The exception to this is twin lens cameras with neckstrap and waist level viewing I can shoot with quite slow shutter speeds. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>I use a 6x6 Ikonta with a very sharp uncoated Tessar 3.5 lens. Since I came to folding cameras after using 35mm film cameras where blurred images were often the norm, I learnt quite early on that anything below 1/50 in my Ikonta wasn't going to give the sharpest result. However, I have got away with 1/25 at times for portraits. The best images are always at 1/100 or above and the sharpness is quite unbelieveable. Sadly, my meagre scanning equipment could never replicate the wonderful Velvia 100 slides into digital images.</p>

<p>Keep in mind for an old folder, keeping that big piece of film flat is a challenge. Keep the film advance snug tight especially after opening the camera as air can suck the film away from being as flat as it can which can also affect your sharpness.</p>

<p>"Who is correct?" Luis, both of you are correct, and neither of you is correct IMO.</p>

<p>Remember you're talking about a rule of thumb. So how "correct" can you expect it to be? It's an approximation, a vaguery, a guesstimate, a guideline and that's all.<br>

Some people can handhold a moderately long lens at well under 1/100th sec. and some people get terrible camera-shake handholding a wideangle at 1/250th. With me, it depends on my coffee consumption and how excited I get by the subject!</p>

<p>Technically, I suppose if you had some sort of camera-shake machine that moved the camera by a fixed amount during the exposure you'd probably see no difference in a final print between shots taken on 35mm and MF -<em> provided that they were taken at the same subject distance with a lens giving a similar angle-of-view.</em> Reason being that the magnification from subject to final print would be overall the same, and therefore the camera shake would be magnified equally. Therefore the (marginal) decision would have to come down on the side of your friend, since the lens on the MF camera would be longer for the same A-o-V.</p>

<p>Practically though, it's probably going to be an apples versus oranges contest. Are we talking a Leica against a Bronica S2a? Or a Rolleiflex versus a Leningrad?</p>

<p>This thread got me thinking (something I rarely do with my job, so that is why I like this forum). If I make a simple assumption that camera shake due to the hand is a rotation about the optical center at some angular rate, then the distance an imaged point on the film moves during exposure is proportional to the angular rate times the shutter duration times the focal length. So that simple assumption gives the general rule that the shutter speed should be inversely proportional to focal length to keep the same amount of blur for a given format. But a bigger format needs less enlargement than a smaller format to give the same size print. So it seems to me, based upon this simple assumption, that if for 35mm format using a normal lens (say around 45mm) a shutter speed of 1/60 is good, then for medium format using a normal lens (say around 80mm), the shutter speed still need only be 1/60. True, 1/60 would give more absolute blur on a medium format negative than 1/80, but enlargement is only 60/80 that of 35 format.<br>

<br />Of course there are other factors involved. I tend to do a better job of holding steady a medium format camera than a small format camera. And there is mirror slap to consider, although I have heard from others that it really is hand shake that is the main culprit, not mirror slap. I remember testing my Hassy hand held, and I got sharp pictures with my 160mm lens at 1/60. So perhaps with the larger mass, medium format hand held yields steadier results?</p>

<p>Therefore, my proposition is that it is really field of view that is a guide, so when using a normal lens, use at least 1/60 hand held, regardless of format. For moderate long, such as for example 90mm at 35 format or 160 at medium format, perhaps 1/125 would be a prudent choice.</p>

<p>A big part of avoiding camera shake with medium format cameras is being able to hold the camera comfortably. The Speed Grips for the Bronica ETR/SQ/GS cameras are comfortable and allow me to avoid camera shake at the slower shutter speeds. With the GS-1 I will usually cradle the camera with my left hand between shots so my right hand is not holding the full weight of a camera, back, finder and lens all the time. My left hand will hold the lens from the bottom during shooting for extra support. These Bronicas are not terribly comfortable to hold without the Speed Grips. The one camera I use without a grip is the SQ-A. With a waist level finder, back and 80mm lens it's not too awkward hand-held and not too heavy. The SQ-AM, with all of its batteries, is heavy but it is fairly comfortable to hold. I have been reasonably comfortable hand holding fixed lens TLRs.<br>

Recently I have started to shoot with Mamiya M645/J/1000S cameras. These are not very comfortable to use hand held by themselves. I have the left hand grip and I am getting used to it. Eventually I will look for a right hand side motor and see how that feels. Earlier this month I used a 1000S with the 210/4 and without a bracket. It was awkward but the results were good. </p>

<p>Thank you for truly illuminating responses. I would like to add that of the 8 frames in the roll, frame 3 and frame 7 were sharp. The remaining frames were blurred. Unfortunately I did not record the shutter speed for each frame so I have no idea which is what. I do remember that some frames I shot at 100 and others at 50, perhaps even 25. Some of the frames were clearly blurred just by looking at the negative, and others I only noticed them when I scanned. I was holding the camera only at the body itself with both hands, the bellows and lens cantilevered way out there which may have contributed to the blurring. It was my first roll of film with this camera and hopefully I will photograph a second roll tomorrow, weather permitting. I plan to be more careful with the shutter speeds, noting at what each frame is taken. I am also thinking of cradling the front of the camera with my right hand while holding the body and triggering the shutter button with my left.</p>

<p>If we assume that the unsharpness problem is due to camera shake,* then the answer is that the problem of camera shake is directly proportional to the degree of subject magnification. That is a function of the angle of view for the lens you use, and how big you print. So whether you use a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera or a 115mm lens on a 6x9, the lens's angle of view is the same, and if you print both 8x10 inches, the effective net subject magnification is the same. In that circumstance, <em>if the ergonomic factors are equal</em>, then you need the same shutter speed with both cameras to achieve an acceptably-low degree of camera shake.</p>

<p>Of course the ergonomic factors are rarely equal, and the problem of camera shake is also directly proportional the degree of ergonomic problems. Viewfinder blackout, and to some degree mirror slap, may make it harder to hold SLR's steady. Whether you can best brace against your body a TLR or a rangefinder depends on you. That heavy medium format camera that seems steady near home might be too much weight after a brisk climb, and vice versa. The winder grip that feels great to me may feel awkward to you. Etc.</p>

<p>AFAIK, there have been no comprehensive, scientific tests of camera shake under a wide variety of circumstances with a wide variety of photographers. What we have is a body of largely anecdotal evidence. So we've got opinions, some of them no doubt based on considerable experience and evidence. But if you want to know for yourself and your camera(s), you will have to experiment.</p>

<p>*As others have at least partially addressed, things like film flatness, focusing errors, camera geometry on a folder, etc. are also possible causes.</p>

<p>I think that the first response by Brian has it nailed, use a tripod.</p>

<p>The camera manufacturers went to great pains a few decades ago to carry out research into blurred images as they obviously wanted as many customers as possible to buy their products. The result of the research was that camera shake was the culprit.</p>

<p>Better still, use a tripod and cable release combined which is something I have recently returned to in medium format. Not sure if Zeiss Ikonta Chas such a facility?</p>

Frank, the point of the Ikonta C is it hosts the largest negative in a camera that can be easily carried and is even pocketable in a coat. A tripod defeats this purpose.

Web searched for camera shake test and found some interesting information. Don't know if it will help. http://home.roadrunner.com/~creek/camera_shake_test.htm

http://www.tricedesigns.com/2013/05/24/shake-reduction-in-adobe-photoshop-cc/

<p>... but using a camera which yields only an occasional (and perhaps even "unpredictable") sharp image also defeats the purpose, Luis! One thing I noticed with old folders is that the shutter release throw distance (and lack of smoothness) is probably a lot of the problem. They just aren't as easy to release as an electronic release. If tripod is unacceptable, at least give a monopod a try. I find them to be easily transported and used with all MF cameras -- TLR, old folders, and SLR.</p>

<p>I used to use a Mamiya 7 and I could not only put it in my parka pocket but it had a tripod thread, 6x7cm image size, metering......</p>

<p>As Brian says, if the camera, of whatever type and make, only yields occasional sharp image it is probably better used an ornament or a doorstop.</p>

<p>Of course, some people do enjoy using quirky cameras and derive great pleasure from that. Enjoy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds pretty shaky to me. No matter what the rule is. if you are a shaky hand, your pics wil be blury. Speed is speed.</p>

<p>I've shot several rolls with a Kodak Monitor 620, with a 105mm lens. At 1/100 & 1/200th sec, I have no problem getting a sharp image. At 1/50th sec, I might get 1 sharp image in 5.<br>

Should note that I use this camera handheld and fire the shutter with a cable release because the shutter button linkage doesn't work on the camera.</p>

<p>Not a scientific test:<br>

<a href="http://lycabettus.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/shooting-the-mamiya-rz67-handheld-how-much-sharpness-one-sacrifices-over-a-tripod-and-mirror-lock-up/">http://lycabettus.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/shooting-the-mamiya-rz67-handheld-how-much-sharpness-one-sacrifices-over-a-tripod-and-mirror-lock-up/</a><br>

If one takes into account all contributing factors (i.e.: camera motion / mirror slap / shallow depth of field / high resolution of the MF negative), it is indeed a pleasant surprise to find an acutely sharp picture now and then!<br>

I guess that with meticulous technique, one can manage to obtain technically sharp results about 70% of the time.</p>

<p>It comes up in a lot of threads that what the OP wants he probably isn't going to get. The Ikonta may be pocketable but if its used handheld then</p>

<ul>

<li>Depending on the shutter speed, how well he holds the camera, how much coffee he's had and so on there are going to be some usably sharp images and some that aren't. The higher the speed the better the proportion of usable negs will become. I have to say that getting 1 usably sharp shot in 2/3/4 would not do for me- for me I'd want to operate in a way that I fully expected to get me sharp negs, even if a few were not, because I'd want to leave the scene knowing that I'd got it or at least pretty sure I'd got it. With a handheld slr and a good grip, I could not approach that point till 1/125 sec. And then I was never really sure about the extent to which I was sacrificing depth of field to use 1/125 or better. For some people the sacrifice would extend to the use of higher film speeds too.</li>

<li>Even when I got a usably sharp neg or slide handheld, there was no doubt in my mind that I'd have got sharper on a tripod, even at 1/125. Depending on what you want to do with your pictures this may not prove a real issue for you, but it will mean that the enlargement potential of your frames will be less than it could have been. </li>

</ul>

<p>The problem with rules of thumb is that they don't apply to everyone and absolutely won't apply to the same person every time - there are all sorts of reasons relating to the environment, the photographers physical and mental state, the nature of equipment and so on that make this so. There's really no point trying to validate (or otherwise) the rule of thumb because the only thing that matters is your results, your standards , and your needs. </p>

<p>Interestingly I found that my chances of success with a mamiya 7ii were higher, and that I had a reasonable chance of success at 1/30 sec. Don't know why- lack of mirror slap is far too simplistic. </p>

<p>Hello all. Life is simple, and the solution to this problem is simple. Use a tripod and the 10 sec delay on the camera. If your tripod is hefty, high winds can be tamed. Enjoy, Bill</p><div></div>

<p>Hello again. I should have mentioned a cable release...the K1000 does not have a shutter timer, but the cable allows you to SLOWLY hit the shutter button. My 124 Yashicamats are used with the 10sec timers....even better results. Bill</p>