Do Leica M users twitch less?

I keep reading where Leica M users are able to take great shots at 1/15 sec or less while ordinary (whatever that means) camera users are stuck with the old reciprocal rule, i.e. 50mm = 1/60 sec at least and so on. I'm puzzled. I don't understand how the quality of the lens translates into clearer shots at lower shutter speeds. To me, whether you're using the $2000 Megalux or the $20 Schlockticron, shutter speed is shutter speed and body movement is body movement. Please explain.

A vital difference in being able to handhold a Leica M at slow shutter

speeds is its lack of a mirror flopping up and down with each

exposure, shaking things up and causing vibration. The Leica is also

relatively dense, and its mass helps to lessen camera movement.<P>

 

This was shot at 1/25 second handheld (about f2.8):<P>

 

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/tootsies01.jpg">

Oh yeah, it also helps to drink heavily. The trick is to drink enough

that your hands steady but not quite enough to blur your vision.

Another advantage of the lack of a mirror in any rangefinder

camera (not just Leicas) is that your view of your subject is not

temporarily obscured @ the moment of exposure, so you can

confirm that you're holding the camera steady.

The lack of a moving reflex mirror and the relatively massive RF

body are two elements which allow for steadiness at slow

shutter speeds. Another thing is the very low vibration of the

focal plane shutter itself: it's fairly soft springing and self-

damping rubberized cloth curtains generate very little vibration

moment, plus the soft, smooth release helps a lot too.

 

<p>

 

Godfrey

Also, keep in mind that the aperture blades are always stopped

down to the working aperture in any rangefinder camera. SLR's,

on the other hand, you'd be viewing a scene on full aperture, and

when the shutter trips, the movement of blades as they stop

down to the working aperture contributes to in-camera vibration.

Leica M's don't have this added factor, in addition to having a

rubberized cloth shutter and no reflex mirror.

Nice shots Mike. I'm shooting a boxing club at the moment, low light,

fast moving subject matter, f2 to f4 at best, and an 8th to 30th hand

held. 35mm asph. Pre focus, guess work, praying, all of the above, I've

tried it all. Whatever it takes I guess. When something works I'll post

it... which leads me to....

 

<p>

 

....Mike, how are you submitting your shots to this forum? Is there

someplace to submit work for feedback?

 

<p>

 

Wayne

Well, I reckon on my CL I have a stop over what I can accomplish with

the R6.2, but on the other hand if I use my Leica table tripod with

my R6.2 as a chest pod, I can achieve easily what I can achieve using

the CL, in fact, it may even be better. But, of course, you are more

conspicuous with this arrangement. It is more difficult to use the

chest-pod approach with an M as they have an assymetrically arranged

tripod socket. I think that, although the mirror issue is there, M-

users do somewhat exaggerate this aspect - the mirror on the R8 and

the R6.2 are really pretty well damped. To me, the more significant

issue with this kind of photography is the fact that an M is much

quieter and the lack of blackout is nice. You get an advantage, but

one can make too much of it.

Mike, you've posted a lot of snaps to this forum over the last few

months I've been coming here, and I have to say this one really hits

the spot. Very nice.

I am new to Leica M, but have used it exclusively for 3-4 weeks. Just

the other day I picked up my Nikon FE, and I was shocked by the

vibration I feelt in my hands when the mirror slapped! It got to have

som effect on handheld photography.

Mike, that is First Class! Many thanks indeed for the regular

treats :-)

 

<p>

 

Cartier-Bresson let it be known that he avoided coffee and smoking

and did arm exercises, in addition to calisthenics, to gain steady

hands. Results not withstanding there might be a little bit of

sweeping exaggeration in the old master's claim.

 

<p>

 

Me, I get totally sharp results beginning at 1/250. But 1/30 is

almost consistently acceptable. Found the same to be true with my

Nikon FM, though I must say that with that camera, I always was hyper

careful about steadying up before the shot, but my Leica M6 1/30

shots are on the fly... Maybe it was the CLANGGG!!! that the FM used

to go off with, that made me cautious before pressing the shutter.

The Leica seems more stable in use.

 

<p>

 

And weight does matter. I now have an old Plaubel Makina 670, about

the weight of an F5, about twice that of an M body and small lens,

and the image in the viewfinder is noticeably steadier than the Leica.

I have shots that I have taken at 1/8 second that have a nice

quality, sure they are not critically sharp and anybody who moves in

the image is blurred but without close investigation you would not

comment about camera shake. To get an impresion of the vibration that

you get from an M use the B setting and squeeze slowly....The opening

is the only vibration that matters, the closing clunk is obviously

post exposure.

 

<p>

 

I rarley get anything useful at 1/4 and by 1/30 you are almost

completely safe.

 

<p>

 

Richard

IMHO the shape of the M camera body helps as well: modern SLRs with

these huge grips appear to comfortably fill the hand, preventing the

need to cramp the fingers around that thin metal piece hardly thicker

than a film cartridge--well, it's true only as long as the camera

isn't at eye level. Keeping the right elbow in touch with the torso

bends the right wrist at a large angle unless the camera body is

thin. The Nikon FM, the Leica R6.2, and of course the M, are more

comfortable to hold than a Canon EOS or Nikon F80.</p>Avoiding coffee?

That must be a cultural thing. I need at least two cups of espresso to

be steady.</p>And congratulations, Mike, on your shots. Especially the

one in this thread!

It also helps that Leica M users *believe* they can hand hold

down to 1/4, so at 1/15, its a piece of cake ;^)

My new love is the Visoflex III. Massive inertia, in just the right

location. Now if I can find some decently fast lenses for it, in

addition to the 90 Summicron. . .

Dan,

 

<p>

 

The vibration free camera is the main criteria of any camera to me. A

vibration delays all advantages of any best lens. That�s why I had

had so much cameras. I never use a tripod, except when shooting in a

studio. Because of vibration issue I have rejected many cameras, some

of them are Leica R4, R6, CL, all modifications of Nikons FM, FE, FA,

Hassy 2000FC, 501, 503, ELX, Rollei-SLRs, 'even OM-1, OM-2 because of

aperture brining mechanism giving a vibration.

 

<p>

 

So, I can confirm that RF & TLR & view-cameras in all formats are the

best choice when shooting without a tripod.

 

<p>

 

From a classic SLR� cameras as a genuine dinosaur, who I am, I choose

in 35mm format: Nikon F, F2, F3 (mirror lock up mechanism), in MF:

Hasselblad 500 CM, 500 ELM because of very low level of vibration,

that allows me shooting at 1/8 hand held .

 

<p>

 

Of course all M & SM Leicas are out of competition.

 

<p>

 

To Mike: thanks for the picture.

 

<p>

 

Victor

I can definitely get 2 stops more out of a Leica, but 3 stops from a

Rolleiflex or a Fuji rangefinder which have leaf-shutters.

Having got used to the "KA-CHUNK" recoil of my Nikons, I was greatly

surprised by the tiny *click* of the Leica M. It sure makes me feel

more confident in taking pictures with lower shutter speed settings.

I have successfully shot with 1/2 sec--it was done with arms and one

leg tighty wrapping around a lamppost for support (while people were

looking at me wondering why I was getting intimate with a lamppost).

By the way, Mike, that's a great picture--the composition is so near

perfect that it looks as if you have carefully staged it!

do you belive diphragm position may have something to do; with my SA

21/3.4 I feel more secure to exposure movement than with a 21/2.8

with a diphragm further behind, in my imagination it feels logic;

what do you think?

The only twitching I experianced was when I saw my Amex statement

after purchasing a M6TTL .72 w/ a 35mm 'lux and 90 elmarit. If anyone

is interested I will let you know how my SLR to RF transition

progresses.

Age has a lot to do with it (just wait, your time will come). When I

was young I could routinely hold my IIIf still at 1/10 second. When

I turned 50 I suddenly realized that 10% of my Kodachromes 25s

weren't critically sharp. NOw, if it's below 1/125 I either use a

tripod or make many exposures, hoping that one will be steady. I

don't find Leicas any better than my SLRs (except the Super D

Graflex).

Bill, maybe attitude has a bit to do with it as well. At 45 yrs old

(a couple of years back), I too found that my slow speed shots were

often turning out unsharp. At first though it was my eyes, had them

checked, and when okayed tried pulling out my tripod for anything

less than 1/125 of a sec and suddenly all my shots were crisp. But

instead of relying on the tripod I thought that maybe I had just

become a bit sloppy, after all I had been photographing 25 years and

had come to expect my images to be good (esthetically as well as

technically). So I started to 'reforce' myself to slow down, breathe

properly and 'squeeze' the release (I realized that often I stabbed

at it to get the shot). After a bit of 'repractice' I find I can

routinely shoot at 1/15 sec again. Just a thought.

The Abrahamsson Soft Release is supposed to help obtain less

blurry photos with slow shutter speeds. I haven't really test this,

but I like the Soft Release. It just feels better and more

comfortable on my Leica.

One of the most interesting features of using the swing-lens panoramic

cameras like Widelux, Horizon, Noblex, etc., is that the combination of

the moderate wideangle lens and and scanning slit shutter makes it

possible to hand-hold successfully at 1/15 or longer, yet the actual

scan exposure at that setting takes several seconds. Each part of the

film gets an effective 1/15 during that scan. I'm always sure I've

moved the camera during the exposure, yet the final result is a sharp

negative. The fact that horizontal lines are probably not kept straight

over the course of a long exposure is obscured by the inherent

distortion of the swing-lens method.

I think Mani is right about heavier cameras having less movement. I

think the weight of a motor drive helps. It lowers the center of

gravity, for one thing. For those who don't need one, how about a

nicely finished block of heavy wood, like cocobolo or something,

shaped like a motor drive? Maybe I'll work one up in the basement

and post the results. It could even have a front grip on it.