Hand held Vs. Tripod

<p>Is there a big difference from hand holding or using a tripod with a hasselblad? Given that you shoot at about to less than 1/125 when hand holding? I have a 500c/m with a 60mm CF T* Lens.</p>

There is an ENORMOUS difference between the results you get handholding and using a tripod, no matter what camera, focal length or shutterspeed.<br /><br />That's why it gives ample opportunity for the boastfull to boast about how good they are handholding their camera.<br />So if you want proof, see if you can find people boasting about how good they are handholding their camera. Both the "how good they are" and the "their camera" bit.<br />Should not be difficult. ;-)

<p>Consider looking at Joby tripods especially the GP3 and more upmarket GP8, they could be the answer you are looking for.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Adrian.</p>

<p>I agree with QG and regard a tripod/head capable of holding my cameras securely as an essential part of the outfit.</p>

<p>But there are considerations that lead you to shoot handheld from time to time, so its worth working on your technique. For much of the work I do in cities, for example its quite impossible to use a tripod because thats going to need space and time I often haven't got, or get me surrounded by security guards very fast. So get a tripod and use it whenever you positively can't. Make it your default way of taking pictures.</p>

<p>As Q.G. said, there's a huge difference. I always use a tripod with any camera larger than a P&S for most subjects. Obviously it's not practical for street shots, candids, and similar situations.</p>

<p>If you're just scanning images into the computer and showing them on a mobile phone screen you'll never notice it. But if so, why shoot a Hasselblad in the first place?</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

As said by others, the difference is huge.

 

Here is my way:

Use tripod whenever possible. If not, use monopod. If neither is possible than fast shutter speeds.

<blockquote>

<p>There is an ENORMOUS difference between the results you get handholding and using a tripod, no matter what camera, focal length or shutterspeed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br />IMO this hold true for almost any camera no matter what the shutter speed and focal length.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>There is not an ENORMOUS difference between handholding at 1/500th and a tripod with an 80mm/60/40mm lens - some difference perhaps but not a lot. But below 1/250th there is a noticeable difference.</p>

<p>Many other factors are also important, such as mirror vibration, if you use an SLR or DSLR and no prior mirror lock-up. Generally you should not shoot handheld at speeds slower than 1/focal length of the lens, and probably 1/2 or 1/3 rd that value. There is handheld and handheld. Proper holding, breathing and other human factors can change considerably the result. Tripods can be affected by wind. There is also the size of the print, or magnification employed in printing. At some point, more improvement is made by going to a larger format size (like 6 x 9, instead of truncating the format of 6 x 6, if an aspect ratio of 1:1.5 is your goal).</p>

<p>Not being a bird photographer or an LF photographer, where robust tripods are often essential, I prefer the smaller rigid tripods to the larger ones, and win by being able to transport them in a small bag or luggage, whereas the larger tripod requires more attention to transport, in the field or elsewhere. Between tripods of different sizes, the difference in results is not to my mind hugely important for most applications, excepting of course the very flimsy small tripods or poorly conceived ones. It is simply important to use them when you possibly can. It takes a bit longer, but that is often a plus in (adding the time and) enhancing the photographer's approach.</p>

Mirror induced vibrations are not a worry when handholding. It will be orders of magnitude smaller than hand induced shake.<br><br>And yes, even with short focal length lenses and fast shutter speeds, the difference a tripod makes is ENORMOUS.

<p>Although you may not be using a digital back on your Hasselblad, making test shots a more involved exercise, I think it would be quite easy for someone with a digital back and similar equipment (60mm lens on 6x6) to quantify more accurately the issue by making similar shots at 3 or 4 different speeds (1/60 to 1/500, both handheld and on tripod, and blow up the image to give an idea of the blur or not at sizes of importance, say between 10 x 10 and 30 x 30 inches. There may already be something on the web, should anyone know.</p>

<p>While I do not dispute there are circumstances where a tripod is convenient and simplifies things- shooting maquettes for example- with people more often than not they get in the way and slow me down.<br>

 

 

<br>

As long as the discussion stuck to Blads - well I don't have one so I can't say - but at the point the field opens to all cameras...sometimes I conclude folks make these definitive statements to account for their own inabilities or laziness. </p>

<p>How exactly does this (see link) get <em>enormously</em> better if I'd used a tripod? How will it be <em>hugely</em> better? I shot two frames to get this image framed the way I wanted it. The detail in the focus zone on the chest is sharp down to millimeter length hairs and this file is from a greatly reduced flatbed scan with no adjustments in post other than color matching. </p>

<p>Natural light indoors, 135macro, ASA100, f4 1/250th Pentax 67</p>

<p>No less an authority, than Ansel Adams mentions in his writings, about "never handholding below 1/250th". He also suggests using anything available (fence posts,trees,rocks etc) to steady your camera.<br /> Try the old gunsite trick. Attach a small flashlight (with a narrow beam) or a laser pointer atop your camera. Stand about 10-20 feet away from a wall, and dry fire your camera. The beam/dot will clearly bounce about as you steady for the shot. And it might even visibly move when you hit you the shutter. Especially with a medium format camera.</p>

<p>In truth enlargement size, is directly proportional to how noticeable a photograph's vertical "camera shake" is. Quite often a 35mm negative shot at 1/15th second, wide open with fast films. Will look fine printed 4" wide in a newspaper. But try to make an 8x10, and you'll have real drama.</p>

<p><em>There is not an ENORMOUS difference between handholding at 1/500th and a tripod with an 80mm/60/40mm lens - some difference perhaps but not a lot. But below 1/250th there is a noticeable difference.</em></p>

<p>The average person will shake the camera approximately 20 minutes of angle per second. At 1/500 second with a 60mm lens, that translates to about 40 microns at the film plane. If you were using a CFV-16 digital back, that translates to 3.5 pixels of uncertainty, which is highly noticeable. Film is somethat more forgiving, unless your hobby is shooting USAF resolution targets on Technical Pan.</p>

<p>Put a laser pointer on a tripod and take it's picture projected on a wall at a known distance. Measure the diameter of the pattern on the film to estimate the "uncertainty" of hand holding, or even careless technique using a separate tripod.</p>

<p>Is there a big difference for a 60mm lens at 1/125s or faster? No -- I find the tripod unnecessary at that speed and, unless the angle is such that I can't find a comfortable way to hold the camera, I would not use it. I use tripods really only when I need them.</p>

<p>My personal experience is that I usually have no camera movement problem in my images and I am fussy about this (I like to make large prints, say a metre on the short side). However I have had motion blur unacceptable to me in pictures taken at 1/180s and perhaps (although I don't recall any) faster. However I use a digital back and review pictures for acceptable quality before moving on. So on those few occasions when I have motion blur I can re-take the image. If it's a situation where these isn't the ability to correct for a mistake, I trust myself and still don't use the tripod.</p>

<p>Although I do think I have a rather steady hand, I doubt it is outstandingly so. Most people serious about their photography should be able to develop their camera handling technique to render a tripod unnecessary at speeds of approximately 1/focal length in mm or faster.</p>

<p>There are several pictures from my medium format camera at www.suresoft.ca (in the galleries) and very few of them involved the use of a tripod. Many of these images can be zoomed in to 100% if you want to check for motion blur.</p>

<p>Sorry for the double posting -- I don't submit to this forum often -- but I have not found a way to remove the accidental duplicate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you were using a CFV-16 digital back, that translates to 3.5 pixels of uncertainty, which is highly noticeable. Film is somethat more forgiving, unless your hobby is shooting USAF resolution targets on Technical Pan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>3.5 pixels on what resolution sensor?<br>

And I don't get this 'film is more forgiving' comment - the 3.5 pixels you mention translates into a linear distance which will be the same whether using film or digital. Print digital and film to the same size, why would the camera movement be less noticable from the film shot?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that translates to 3.5 pixels of uncertainty, which is highly noticeable. Film is somethat more forgiving</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How can film be more forgiving if the amount of movement is the same?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but I have not found a way to remove the accidental duplicate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There isn't a way to remove it but you can edit it to make it look like you have thought of something else!</p>

<p>If we changed the word TRIPOD and substituted the word Camera Support do you think that may possibly alter the perspective, hauling a tripod around can be a daunting thought but as Steve Levine suggested re Ansell Adams, consider any alternative available the that refers to Camera Support and how best you and your pocket can resolve that situation, from Gyros, mini pocket tripods, bendy tripods, magnetic tripods, graphite and ally tripods, etc etc. You will soon realise that somewhere there is a solution whereby you can carry extra support for your camera without it being a burden. I nearly always carry a lightweight Ally tripod with no trouble at all.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Aidie.</p>

<p>Steve -- film is not more forgiving, it is just less apparent because it tends to resolve less clearly on this smallest level. As you magnify film, it tends to look fuzzier and fuzzier. As you enlarge digital, it keeps looking sharp, sharp sharp and then pixelated. Film can have a great deal of resolution, depending on the type and processing, but when you peer down at the tiniest levels, it is a little fuzzy -- this is easier to confuse with motion than with digital, where when you peer down to the tiniest levels, it just keeps looking as sharp until suddenly it doesn't. Digital has no gradual decline, in other words. So if the motion is there, it will visibly degrade the image more easily than with film, where it can kind of blend in with the mushiness of the grain clumps. <br>

For example, here is a shot comparing Kodachrome 64 to the Leica M9, both taken on a tripod with the 75mm f/2 APO Summicron. The Kodachrome 64 was scanned at 8000dpi on a Hasselblad X5. The digital version (while a bit over sharpened in this example) has lower "resolution" in that it has half the pixels, but the amount of fine detail visible is far greater.<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/kodachrome-vs-m9.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hi Stuart,<br>

The lower image is overexposed.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Aidie,</p>

<p>Tripods, while permitting slower shutter speeds and smaller apertures are inherently slower handling. Having said that, Ansel Adams did have camera movement on a tripod when shooting slow film at F90 as the tripod sank into the ground. I have tripods and a monopod but most of the family activities or "grab" shots that I record are not suitable for tripod use. A 100% pro may be forced into using a tripod or a bank of strobes to get super resolution for publication but as a previous poster mentioned a 4x6 won't show slight camera movement. The results needed determine the method of exposure. In my case of smaller prints, rapid subject motion and a camera that has low noise at high iso a tripod is rarely used.<br _mce_bogus="1"></p>

<p>The final print should probably be the deciding factor for handheld or tripod-based shots. Hasselblad with Zeiss glass is for large prints, otherwise it is a waste of film and paper. Even at 1/500 handheld and with mirror locked up, such prints will show the difference, at least in fine prints--but in principle Hasselblad photography doesn't go for less.<br>

I have found that even shooting handheld with Leica M won't do justice to its extraordinary lenses; perhaps the light 50mm f/2.8 retractable Elmar may be an exception. But now the difference becomes apparent only when projecting transparencies on a large screen.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>The conclusion that I have reached is that DSLR's with anti-shake lenses are superior to MF film and digital cameras for most shooters since the majority of people don't use tripods. :)</p>