Handholding MF

[ted_kostek]

I'm familiar with the rough rule of thumb for 35mm that says to hand

hold your shutter speed should be the inverse of your focal length or

faster. Thus, to get a sharp photo using a 50mm lens, you should use

1/60 sec or faster.

 

Is there a corresponding guide for MF?

 

Granted, for max sharpness you should always use a tripod, but for

spontaneous street shooting, this isn't always reasonable.

 

Seems like the amount of blur you can tolerate should be related to

the amount of magnification. Thus larger prints require sharper

images. Likewise, larger negs (slides), requiring less magnification

for a given print size, do not need to be quite as sharp.

 

What kind of rule of thumb do people usually employ? I assume this

will vary with camera, too. An SLR will require a faster shutter

speed than a TLR or rangefinder.

 

Thanks in advance.

[mab]

The "usual" published rule of thumb is the same as for 35mm; a chief

advantage of a larger film form factor is that you get larger images

for a given degree of magnification. Of course, that also means that

for a given final print size, you need less enlargement than for

smaller film, so your mileage may vary.

 

That said, I personally find the "reciprocal of the focal length" rule

assumes a much steadier hand than I usually have, especially with

bulky and heavy medium format cameras and lenses. I try to avoid

handholding at all with MF, except under very constrained

circumstances or, e.g., when shooting with strobes. If I can't

use a tripod, I generally shoot with a (smaller) digital camera,

which even at only 4-10M-pixels often gives me sharper results than MF

handheld, since I can hold it steadier.

 

-matt

[mike_elek]

I think the weight of the MF cameras lends to a more stable platform. Of course, there's a point where it's too much weight, which means your muscles fatigue much quicker.

 

I find it tougher to handhold some of the digital cameras, because they're too light.

 

With TLRs, some people attach a strap to the tripod post and when they take a photo, they step on the strap and pull upward. Sort of a reverse monopod.

 

In general, with a TLR, I try not to get below 1/30. I've handheld a Rolleiflex SL66 using its bracket at 1/15 and got sharp results. However, I wouldn't want to test my luck too often.

[Spearhead]

The "rule of thumb" is meaningless. It's a number pulled out of thin air. I've asked repeatedly for some demonstration of its validity, but there are no tests and there's certainly no scientific principles behind it.

 

The real answer is that there is no answer - it's dependent on technique, state of mind, coffee and alcohol intake, physical well-being, and the content and print size of the photo. In some situations, I'm comfortable down to a half second with both 35mm and medium format rangefinders. In other situations, it might be difficult to shoot under 1/250th. When I used a Rollei TLR, unlike some people, I was unable to find a comfortable position to hold the camera for low speed shooting and ended up using a tripod quite a bit.

[spanky]

I do a lot of street shooting with my RZ67 ProII and I just use as fast a shutter speed as I can. This just means I have to get closer to my subjects so I don't loose them with less dof, but this works for me since I like to isolate subjects rather then shoot busy crowded scenes.

Good Luck,

Marc

[ian_everhov]

I?m with Matt on this one. I use a Hasselblad 500cm with a classic 50-80-150 lens kit, and a Rolleiflex TLR. Neither feels really shake free when hand holded, i almost exclusivly use them on a tripod not only for the sake of shake, but also as i see MF photography as a slower more thoughtful way of shooting. But thats me... you might be steady as a rock, it sure depends on what kind of MF gear you use though. Mamiya 6 or 7 are probably like shooting 35mm, Mamiya RZ or RB... well god luck:-)

[blakley]

If you use a neck strap (pulled tight) and focus on the ground glass instead of using a

prism finder, you can make an MF camera very stable compared to 35mm. Nevertheless I

think the only way you're going to answer your question is by shooting some film and

evaluating the results.

[david_henderson]

What seems to work for me is as follows assuming a still subject so attempting to keep the camera as still as possible, and where "good enough" means I can probably have it printed to at least 12" sq.

 

Bronica 6x6 slr normal-w/angle lens 1/60

 

Bronica 6x6 slr short telephoto 1/125

 

Mamiya 7 rangefinder normal-w/angle lens. Nearly always ok at 1/30; half the time at 1/15

 

Mamiya 7 rangefinder 150mm. Needs 1/30. Prefer 1/60.

 

Note that "good enough " does not mean as sharp as it would have been with a tripod; and that subjects/treatments vary enormously in how sharp they need to be.

[OCULUS New York]

I routinely run my Rollei 6003 with a giant 75-150 Variogon (aka: Very Oh My God, this is heavy) around events and seldom run into shake problems. I use the 150 for freehand portraiture. I generally use a monopod around sporting events sidelines with my 180 with 1.4 Longar or even 2.0X, but both are still very handholdable in decent light. Only when the afternoon gets late do I worry about bringing out the monopod. The 350 is another story though...lol

 

I suspect that much of this stability is attributable to Rollei's excellent handle, and the inherent mass in German brass and glass.

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[richard_milner2]

I am happy down to 1/30 with my Bronica RF645 rangefinder, using the 65m or 45mm lenses. However, as others have said, it's partly down to technique. If I 'stab' at the shutter button shake is likely to happen, and can also happen at higher speeds.

[k._rivkin]

It's more depending on your personal physiology rather then on some rules.

 

I have a terrificly sharp shot made with hassy wide angle at 1/30. In general I did not have much trouble using 1/30 to 1/60 with most of my optics.

 

TLR's can be very bulky to hold, especially Mamiya C3 style. I would say that actually for me my Hassy is as good in terms of holding as it gets, and it actually has less hand related shakes then my 35mm gear.

[conrad_hoffman]

I'm with Jeff- too many variables. I will say that I usually have higher standards for sharpness for my MF stuff, than for 35mm, so higher shutter speeds, a tripod, or faster film is the rule. The penalty for faster film is usually small, so if I was happy with Plus-X or FP-4 in 35mm, I'm happy with Tri-X or HP5+ in MF.

[john_photo]

My rules of thumb are almost identical to Dave's since I use etrsi and Mamiya 7. The mamiya was purchased for handholding. Its incredible how little vibration this camera has. Recently I took a wide angle 50mm shot at 1/30th second handheld and under the loupe it is extremely sharp with no signs of shake. I would feel confident going very big with this image if need be.

 

The only exception to dave's experiences being the normal lens for the etrsi wich I try and rate at 1/90th using the ae prism or higher. Have had some problems at 1/60th.

 

Handholding the 150mm is usually done with flash so I dont worry about it much. Otherwise it lives on a tripod.

 

Your mileage may vary as I've historically always been poor at handholding cameras.

[dave_s]

I dislike holding 35mm slower than 1/250 (sometimes I'll go to 1/125), and nearly all my MF is from a tripod. This is not to say that you guys are wrong. I always have a tripod in my trunk, and I don't do this for a living, so I can work as slow as I want.

 

Has anyone ever collected data on what handholding does to resolution and acutance? This would be useful data to have, but I've never seen it measured quantitatively. I assume if your modern Zeiss glass can resolve 50 to 100 lines per mm, then you're probably moving at least that distance (10 to 20 microns) during a 1/60 sec exposure. But I don't know.

 

I asked a similar question of the leicaboys last week-- specifically if there's evidence that any modern lens outperforms any other modern lens if they're both handheld at 1/30. There were several posts that followed (the general theme was telling each other to f**k off), but nobody answered my question.

[sergio_ortega7]

Lots of good personal observations and advice. Handholdability is a very tricky thing to quantify, and very subjective. With medium format, I believe camera design and type is the most important factor, though several other factors are equally critical.

 

After thirty years of using MF, I've personally never been able to achieve adequate handheld sharpness at speeds slower than 1/250 or 1/125 sec. with any MF SLR and normal lens combination (Pentax 6x7, Mamiya RB and Hasselblad). Stop and think of the many simultaneous, complicated and vibration-producing mechanical operations taking place when you depress the shutter button of any MF SLR...it's really amazing how many things can degrade the ultimate image sharpness on these designs. A tripod, cable release and MLU operation seems to be the only consistent way to get good sharpness with any MF SLR in my experience. I once saw a fellow strolling around a Canyonlands NP scenic viewpoint with a Mamiya RZ and what looked like a longer than normal lens, happily shooting away handheld at dusk. I can only wonder what his images looked like under a loupe. Yet many MF users claim they can handhold these massive SLRs, and even smaller, lighter Hasselblads, and get good results. It's beyond me.

 

I've been able to get very good handheld results with both Mamiya and Rollei TLRs at speeds as low as 1/15 sec, and sometimes slower. I seem to be able to solidly brace the TLR camera body at my waist with no problem. With MF rangefinders (Fuji and M7II) I can get sharp images as low 1/60 or 1/30; I cannot seem to brace the rangefinder design as well as the TLR when pressed against my right eye.

 

When shooting at slow speeds it really helps to make more than one exposure. Many times the same exact exposure is sharp on one frame and hopelessly fuzzy on the next frame, showing how important luck can be: breathing, heartbeat, hand and muscle tremors and so forth can make all the difference at slow speeds.

 

I can often get the best failing-light exposures by simply leaning against a wall or post and holding my breath. Keep in mind that low-light images often do not depend upon ultimate sharpness for success. There are so many things involved that a general rule of thumb for low speed shooting with MF is impossible. Personal expectations, style and subject matter also has a lot to do with it.

 

I'm always amazed how many new MF users, drawn to the larger format from 35mm by the promise of tack-sharp large prints, hoping to match large format results, walk around snapping away handheld shots of landscape or architectural sunject matter. They are usually dismayed when they study their images on a light table. The reason LF and MF prints look so sharp has less to do with format size and so much more to do with the slow setup and disciplined technique needed to use a view or MF camera.

[robert_nancarrow]

Tom, contrary to popular belief I typically can hand-hold my 500c/m down to 1/30 and even 1/15 second and even at times with the 180mm. I use either the waist level with magnifier or a chimney finder and I find that the position I use (head and neck bent down over the camera with 1 hand under camera and 2nd hand supporting side and focus ring) along with the camera pressing into my head (eye socket) gives very good stability. It is said that the mirror shake creates a problem but one must remember that the mirror is moved and stopped when the shutter opens. This being said, I still take more than one shot in case and if time permits, prefer to use tripod or monopod. Bob.

[picturesque]

I shoot with my Hasselblad down to 1/30th no problem, 1/15th if I concentrate. I do employ the "mashing the camera to the forehead" technique (I use a prism), and most of my shots are with flash. I don't know why, but the Hasselblad seems to be pretty stable, given the big mirror flopping around. With my Mamiya C330, 1/15th was no problem. You have to experiment with holding and find your own limits. If I put a tele lens on either, I would up the limit by 1 stop, so 1/60th on the Hasselblad with 1/30th if I concentrated, and 1/30th on the Mamiya, with 1/15th if I concentrated. On the Mamiya, a tele lens throws the center of balance off more than putting a tele on the Hasselblad. Take a roll of slide film and do a series of tests with your specific equipment. I use these cameras with a flash bracket--the weight and balance changes from using the camera alone.

[silent1]

You've heard this dozens of times already, but forget the "rule" about 1/focal length as a minimum shutter for hand holding. I have shots made with my Kodak Reflex II at 1/25 (on an 80 mm lens) that are sharper than others at 1/125 with my Moskva-5 -- because the TLR is easier to hold steady. OTOH, I have shots I've hand held with the Moskva-5 (105 mm lens) at 1/30 that let me count the slats in a venetian blind half a block away, too.

 

Generally, I find a waist level hold is easier to steady than eye level, a shutter release with short travel and little force needed is easier to hold steady than one that needs a lot of force or movement to operate -- and some cameras don't seem to show motion blurring at all. My Speedex Jr., with fixed 1/30 and 80 mm lens, almost never shows motion blur -- or at least none that is visible beyond the slight overall softness of the lens itself -- unless I just plain jerk while exposing.

[richard_cochran]

The only good thing about that rule of thumb is that it's easy to

remember and it brings home the point that, all other things being

equal, a longer lens is more subject to camera shake. But as

has been pointed out, it's incredibly subject to exceptions due to

technique, camera design, environmental conditions, and desired

enlargement size.

<p>

A well braced, comfortable calm photographer who

is leaning against a tree may handhold at 1/4 second with a

normal lens, while a caffeine addicted photographer who is shivering

cold in severe wind on the pitching deck of a sailboat may blur

a shot at 1/500 with a normal lens.

<p>

If you absolutely <b>must</b> have a rule of thumb, as a

starting point, I'd say use the same one as you use for

35mm. Yes, the lenses are longer for the equivalent

angle of view, but the reason you're shooting MF in the

first place is presumably because you're expecting

more detail than you would have gotten in 35mm.

<p>

Anyway, if you use the 1/(focal length) rule, you have

all of the rule's original advantages: it's easy to remember and

brings home the point that longer focal lengths are more

subject to camera shake. In the details, it fails just

as miserably regardless of the format you try to apply it

to.

[roland_ehrlich2]

> Likewise, larger negs (slides), requiring less magnification for a given print size, do not need to be quite as sharp.

 

You mean, compared to 35 mm? If you contend yourself with the same final print quality compared with 35 mm results, why do you use MF for street photography at all? With this restriction, a nice 35 mm system could also produce fine results. Remember, Cartier-Bresson did wonderful shots with his 35 mm, and I think nowadays, from the mere technical point of view, it could be even better because we have better films. Don`t understand me wrong, I also photograph with a medium format system. But I think there are situations where downsizing could result in a more versatile solution.

[lex_jenkins]

Depends on the camera. I handhold my Agfa Isolette because it's one of the lightest cameras I've ever used. It has a tripod socket and "T" setting on the shutter but I doubt I'd ever use either.

 

One quirk about this camera that affects handholding is the placement of the shutter release - it's a lever mounted to the right of the lens rather than a button on the top plate as with later models. To operate the camera I grip inside the body between the body and bellows with my first three fingers and trip the lever using my pinky. If I need to steady the camera I'll use my left hand but often I'll one-hand it. Works fine if you have fairly long fingers.

 

Most of the time I tripod mount my TLRs (Rollei and Yashica). But they're not difficult to handhold and some of my favorite photos with these cameras were handheld. There's no mirror slap or focal plane shutter movement so some folks believe it's reasonable to handhold down to 1/15 or even less. When I was younger I'd have agreed - nowadays 1/30 is usually the slowest I can handhold and be assured of sharp results.

 

When I handhold the TLRs I often use the non-optical "sports finders". These are basically just square holes in the opened hood that roughly represent the 6x6 framing. With fast film, zone focusing and smaller apertures for greater DOF it works very well.

 

If I need more accurate focusing my Rolleiflex has a mirror inside the semi-folded hood for eye-level use. The image is upside down and reversed but it's still possible to compose and focus quickly with reasonably accurate framing. I've used this for photographing parades and street festivals with slow film, in low light or when I wanted shallower DOF.

 

Unfortunately my Yashica 635 lacks that option so it's either the non-optical action finder or normal waist level viewing.

 

There are prism finders available for Rolleis that provide the more familiar view we see through SLRs - right side up and correctly oriented side to side. I just haven't found the need for one - it's pretty easy to use the built-in mirror prism thingie and I don't want the extra weight of the accessory prism.

[nick roberts]

I can scarcely handhold a folder at any speed - they seem designed to induce camera shake regardless. For me, the infamous rule of thumb is about right for my M645, but for my Pentacon 6 I need to always use a faster speed. My handheld MF camera of choice is a TLR, preferably Rolleiflex F - I can handhold an F to 1/15 every time, and 1/8 with a fair chance of success. With a lighter TLR, I have to use a stop faster shutter speed.

[matthew_kendrick]

<b>Matt Blaze</b> said "<i>a chief advantage of a larger film form factor is that you get larger images for a given degree of magnification</i>".

<br>

I think that motion blur does not depend on the degree of magnification (assuming the same angle of view lens in different formats and the same motion to the camera) but on the size of final print. So I'd say that for a given motion of the camera, whatever blur you'd get on a 35mm print you'd get on a MF print.

<p>

<b>Dave Sims</b> wrote "<i>I assume if your modern Zeiss glass can resolve 50 to 100 lines per mm, then you're probably moving at least that distance (10 to 20 microns) during a 1/60 sec exposure</i>".

<br>

Here, I'm not convinced you can equate a movement of the camera with the same movement of the film image. If your approach was true (I move the camera 20 microns, the image on film shifts 20 microns), then by moving a MF about 3 inches, we would have a completely different picture on the film, and we know this is not the case. I guess (only a guess) if you move 20 microns while exposure takes place you'll get a very sharp image. If you aim at subjects at infinity, I'd be surprized you could find any blur at all (even with careful examination). If you aim at closer subjects there might be something but I doubt it... (I'm making assumptions based on intuition, not knowledge ;-).

<p>

- matt

[dave_s]

Matt, you're correct. Pure translational (lateral) movement of the camera is expected to have little effect on images of distant objects. But if that was the only contributor, it should be possible to handhold a picture of an 'infinitely' distant object, like the moon, for 1sec, or 10sec, because there's no parallax.

 

I should have been more clear that the real killer of image 'sharpness' is angular movement of the lens axis. It's not so much that you move the camera from side to side during the exposure, but that it's impossible to keep the camera pointed in a completely fixed unchanging direction, and that really does change the image that the camera 'sees'. This is why mirror flop is a big problem with SLRs-- it transmits rotational movement to the camera body.

 

It would be interesting to have quantitative data on how lens performance diminishes at different handheld shutter speeds. I suspect you guys who handhold at 1/8 or 1/15 are giving up a huge amount of resolving power, but I don't know how much for a fact.

 

I was reading Ken Rockwell's web page a while ago, and he actually advises against a tripod because it inhibits creativity or something. To which I thought 'Ooooooo-kay . . . ". It wasn't a parody or anything, and he seems to be serious.

[jay_de_fehr]

I rarely use a tripod with my RB67 as I prefer to work quickly and spontaneously. The only time shutter speeds get really slow (1/15) is when I'm shooting Tech Pan. With 400 speed films my shutter speeds are more like 1/250-1/400, and pushing my max shutter speed, which means that I sometimes have to stop down further than I'd like. I find EI 200 to be nearly ideal for handheld, available light portrait photography, allowing 1/125-1/250 shutter speeds wide open (f4.5 for the 180mm) in open shade. I use a neckstrap and WLF. I was surprised to learn that I could handhold with regular success down to 1/8-1/4 sec. I shoot portraits, and maximum sharpness is not my first priority, but I don't like motion blur either. As a beginner, I was aware of the "rule", and resisted slower than recommended shutter speeds for a long time, until I got into some do or die situations with TP. I no longer worry about camera shake at slow shutter speeds, and can direct my anxiety toward subject movement, which is a far greater problem for me. Good luck.