Rangefinders vs "heavy" SLRs at slow shutter speeds

[marc_lieberman1]

Much is made of the abilty to shoot rangefinders handheld at lower

shutter speeds because of the absence of vibration caused by the SLR's

mirror slap. Then again, some here have commented that heavier

camera/lens combos are easy to hold steady at lower shutter speeds

than lighter cameras with lighter lenses. Which is the bigger factor

in reducing camera shake at low shutter speeds?

[johnmarkpainter]

I think that another factor is that many people tend to Flinch when the mirror slaps and

blocks your view.

 

Mirror vibration on a modern 35mm slr doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. I still prefer

to shoot RF's though.

 

jmp

[leslie_cheung]

RF by two stops.

[leslie_cheung]

btw leicas are compact but not all that light weight

[mike_elek]

A heavy SLR does tend to provide stability. Probably get an extra stop over the plasticams. I agree that a rangefinder is better still because the viewfinder doesn't darken. And a sturdy rangefinder probably improves on that.

[frank granovski]

I shot both with my CL/90mm and my FM2T/135mm E today. I tend to use higher shutter speeds with the SLR because of the nasty mirror slap. I should be posting some pics tomorrow evening, PST. Oh, and I prefer rangefinders over SLRs. I always have since about the late 60's. Didn't know I was that old, eh? ;*)

[vidom]

People tend to overestimate their ability to hold an RF camera steady at low speeds (ok, there must be some reason to spend megabucks on Leica RF gear). Mirror slap may add to the effect but what really degrades the image when handholding the camera is your own movement. So in my personal opinion, based on shooting both RF and SLR, mirror slap as image degrading factor is much overrated. Much of the mirror-caused vibration happens when the mirror returns, which is when the shutter has already closed so it doesn't affect shooting at all.

[andy m.]

From my experience, being able to fix your eye on the subject during exposure has a major part to play in terms of getting reasonable sharpness at slower speeds.

 

Of course you can keep both eyes open with an SLR but this isn't quite the same. It is a useful technique to avoid missing failed flash activation with SLRs, though.

[tom_burke3]

And some SLRs are very small these days - the Canon 300V (dunno what it's called in the

US) or the Nikon F55. Pentax have some very small ones as well. They may be good in this

regard, they may not be good, but I expect they're different from, say, an EOS 1N or a

Nikon F6.

 

One other thing - I was looking at a couple of Leicas (M7, MP) the other day at my local

dealers and I was struck at how big they actually are. They're not at the small end of the

range of camera sizes any more (and someone else has pointed that they certainly aren't

light). In the 60s they may well have been smaller and lighter than that first geration of

successful SLRs, but these days there are a lot of consumer SLRs that are no bigger, and of

course all digital compacts will be smaller. Even some DSLRs aren't any bigger (though

differently packaged, of course) - the Canon 350D, the Nikon D50 or the Pentax *istD are

all very small. You can't claim that a Leica is significantly more pocketable any more.

[john_jovic]

I agree with Peter. I also think tha movement caused by the action of pressing the shutter seems to cause the most damage, not the mirror itself. A smooth shutter release is more important than the weight of th camera.

 

I noticed I could shoot lower speeds with an R8/9 mainly because of the smooth shutter release. I've also noticed that I have more trouble hand holding my Canon 70-200 than I do my Leica 180/2. The Leica weighs more so is more stable. This is also noticeable when I pan with the heavy Leica which always tended to get more keepers than the Canon 70-200 (with IS no less). Same when using a Canon 1VHS compared to the 1V without motor. The weight does add stability.

 

JJ

[roland_haid]

NOVOFLEX has always said their long simple achromats can used with lower speeds than shorter, faster tele-lens. Not to think about mirror-lens. The same is true for the older Leitz 400mm and 640mm Telyts, they can be used like a rifle gun. Doug Herr will agree, he has given proof it many times here.

[eric merrill]

Marc:

 

For single shots, I can handhold an M6 about 2 shutter stops slower than I can an EOS 1v.

 

I can usually gain back a stop and sometimes two with the 1v by using the motor drive to take 5 pics or so in a row. Usually the 3rd and 4th ones are the sharpest.

 

 

Eric

[tod_hart]

<i>(ok, there must be some reason to spend megabucks on Leica RF gear).</i><p>

Can't really hold my not-quite-megabucks M2 below 1/15th. Can consistently hold my $35 Yashica Lynx 14e down to 1/4 - sometimes even 1/2! No mirror slap and it's definitely massive.

[jason]

Test what is possible! I have found that i can use the slr in marginal light and slow speeds but focus is the biggest problem.

A good SLR, not a modern light plasticky thing without a real pentaprism cannot be held well! Its too light. So one needs some heft, weight and a smooth shutter release.

My Nikon-F is used this way. I use the Nikon whenever the conditions of weather and safety are more problematic!

[chiswick_john]

Mirror slap on good modern SLR's is a non factor in the ability to handhold at low shutter speeds. It's all in the action of releasing the shutter. RF is good at training for better release technique as you can see the VF /subject move as you press the shutter whereas the whole thing goes black at the critical moment with an SLR and you have no idea what is happening.

[thomas_majevszky]

sometimes having a beer or two helps a lot by stopping the photographer-shaking. (this

works with both rfs and slrs)

[al_kaplan1]

Weight helps. Back in the 1960's I used to read about photographers getting a 1/4" (6mm) sheet of lead cut to the same size as the base plate, held in place with a tripod screw. I used to have a couple of single frame Olympus Pen cameras that were extremely small and light. 1/15 second was risky while I could easily shoot my Leicas at 1/15, even 1/8 and sometimes longer.

 

The ability to fix your eye on the subject and a frameline through the exposure is a major factor to me. SLR's black-out drives me nuts.

[david_bedell]

Another big factor in reducing camera shake is image stabilization.

[working camera]

In general photography to notion of mirror slap is a load of nonsense.

 

Weight of the camera is a more important factor. I found this out to my chagrin when I moved over from heavy Canon Fs to Leica M3s.. I could shoot down to 1/4 with a 50mm lens on the Canons and get a good percentage of acceptable frames. Initially with the M3s I had a lot of trouble with slow speeds, even 1/30 and a 50mm lens. Some improvements on technique helped eventually. However, even today I?m more confident using the heaver M5 and M7 at slower speeds than I am with the lighter M3.

[ben z]

Marc, the older SLRs like my Pentaxes and the Nikon F's for example, packed quite a whallop when the mirror lifted (it's the lift that makes the image-blurring vibration, not the slap when the mirror comes back down because that happens after the shutter has closed). The more modern ones including the Leica R8-9 and even the low-end Nikons and Canons have been engineered to dampen it. What I find to be a huge advantage of the RF over the SLR is the lack of viewfinder blackout coupled with instantaeous shutter release. With people shots I find that I nail more "decisive moments" with the RF.

[john_morris4]

I've noticed that I have better luck handholding at low speeds with the Bronica RF645 than with either Leica Ms or medium-size 35mm SLRs. The RF645 is fairly compact and very solid (meaning pretty heavy), and it also has an electronic shutter release that you just barely squeeze to trip the shutter. And, of course, no moving mirror. That combination of features makes it a really steady little camera.

 

You need that steadyness, too, since the lenses are f/4....

[jtk]

Some of this is urban legend, having to do with the fact that people tend to use rfdrs with short lenses and slrs with long...the old rule of shutter speed=mm (eg 1/100 for 100mm) works conservatively, so if you're shooting the common rfdr range of 35 to 90mm you are readily safe within 1/25th to 1/100th (IMO really more like 1/15-1/60). The same is true with a slr, but you are likely to be using longer lenses, crowding the upper limits of that range.

 

There's nothing more brick-like than a Canon F1, but mirror slap definitely does affect sharpness with long lenses on bellows...ie extreme macro situation. I don't think slap could play any role at all, hand held.

[ray .]

I suspect there's not much difference between the two. It's how

still the photographer is that's the issue.

[mark cortella]

Use a tripod! No,I'm not trying to be smart. I stick my little Leica table pod and ball and socket head on my RF or Slr,you can always find a wall,a rock,a lamppost or anything to brace it against,or use it as a chest pod. Seems to make a big difference,but I haven't done any serious tests to prove it.

[david dutchison]

I'm convinced that mirror movement does make a difference, and I've always thought Leica's reputation for fantastically sharp lenses is based in part on the fact that they are mainly used on mirror-less bodies. People also report getting super sharp results from their fixed lens Cannons/Olympus's/Yashicas.

 

 

My main SLR is the Nikon F2, which certainly fits the category you're talking about. It also has an extremely well dampened mirror (my Nikon FE's mirror produces quite a noticeable little clunk in the hand by comparison). My limit for acceptably sharp hand-held shots with the 50mm/1.4 Nikkor is 1/30th. The results are fine, but they in no way compare to the results I get from the Leica M2 at the same shutter speed.

 

 

The following example was taken with a 1962 Elmar M 50mm/2.8, Speed 1/30th, aperture f8, film Pan-F 50. The detail is from an enlarged sample which, at full frame, would produce a 16X20 print (this was my first experience with Pan-F, so I wanted to see how good it looked at that size). With My Nikon F2, I can get results like this from my 24mm/f2.8, but not with the 50mm.<div></div>