Thoughts while comtemplating my tripod ...

[elmar001]

While reading through the archives last night, I came across a discussion of

the effects of slr mirror slap related to image sharpness. One of the

participants tried to argue that this may affect slr users but tripods were not

an issue with M users because no M users use a tripod. Aside from the absudity

of the argument, it started me thinking about why I use my tripod. It occured

to me that the obvious use, and the one that everyone in the discussion was

thinking about, was the issue of stability, especially at slow shutter speeds.

With fast films and large aperture lenses these days, perhaps few slow shutter

speeds are used. The digital crowd may be even less likely to use a tripod, I

don't know.

 

I can see from the sharpness in some photos that I have looked at that a tripod

SHOULD have been used, as sharpness does not seem to be that important to some

photograhers. Also, depth-of-field is often limited to a few inches. Slower

speeds and f22 would have made a decided improvement in my opinion.

 

But the other main use for a tripod is to establish a POINT OF VIEW for the

photo. Yes, Leica is famous for inventing the snapshot, literally. But that

does not mean that every Leica photo has to be one. The camera, an slr or a

range finder, can be set up on a tripod and moved here and there to get the

best point of view for the photo. While it sits there, the photographer can sit

and contemplate a bit, have a smoke or whatever. He is waiting perhaps for the

LIGHT to be right. Remember waiting for the light? A study of view camera

photos reveals perhaps a lost part of the art for 35mm camera users.

 

With this in mind, I see no reason not to use a tripod with my M3 or M6 as well

as the R4s. It would not be the type of camera that dictates its use, but the

objective of the photographer at the time.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Lawrence Christopher

[asher]

<p>I argued that the OP's inference that the original cited report supported that RFs are

superior to SLRs was "irrelevant because Leica M's are so rarely used with tripods: The

effect of handheld shake trumps any rational conclusions about mirror

vibration..." (verbatim from my post.<p>

I never stated that "no M users use a tripod" as you do above.<p>

Is it just me, or do the majority of M shooters shoot hand held???? Of all the camera-

worshiping photos I see of Leicas in use on this site, I don't recall a single one showing an

M on a tripod. Ditto for my own experience with Leica M (over 20 years).<p>

 

So I agree with you- "I see no reason not to use a tripod with my M...". Go ahead, use a

tripod. It makes no difference to me. What is absurd is

the ongoing need to mis-interpret flawed experiments so that we can feel better about our

cameras.

[el_fang]

If you're going to take the trouble of lugging along a tripod, and the issue of technical quality is so important to you, why not use a bigger format?

[wai_leong_lee]

Because it's not convenient to lug around both medium format and Leica's, for example when travelling.

 

Because of the expense of maintaining two sets of camera systems.

 

And also because 35 mm may well be good enough for most amateur applications.

 

Look-- don't buy the argument that Leicas and tripods don't mix. Leica wouldn't have put in a tripod hole on the baseplate if they intended that.

 

I used my Leicas on tripod in Yosemite Valley in Feb to get amazing landscape pictures using Efke 25.

[wai_leong_lee]

To Asher-- the experiment was not flawed. You didn't like the fact it used older SLRs rather than today's SLR's/DSLRs that's all. The point of that experiment was to show that, other things being equal, SLR mirror slap has a significant effect on picture quality. Is that not correct? The fact that, in real world conditions, camera shake, subject movement, wrong exposure, etc all contribute to deterioration in image quality doesn't invalidate the conclusion of the experiment. And one doesn't need the experiment to feel good about using Leica. If you don't believe you can get superior pictures with Leica, then sell out.

[asher]

<p><i>"You didn't like the fact it used older SLRs rather than today's SLR's/DSLRs that's

all."</i><p>

Wrong again, Wai-Leong. I never wrote anything about the older SLRs vs. the newer

damped ones. Read the original post again. That was someone else.<p>

 

And... EVERY experiment is flawed at some level.<p>

 

My only point, for the last time, was that the OP was misinterpreting the results as

evidence that RFs are superior to SLRs given the absence of a mirror. It's all hogwash

anyway. Go shoot with a Minox on a tripod, or hand hold an 8x10 SLR. It really makes no

difference to me because I'll continue to shoot as I see fit, damn the torpedos, full steam

ahead. Have a lovely evening.<p>

[paul_neuthaler]

It's better to contemplate your monopod!

[Troll]

99% of my photographs are of subjects which are not completely static. Tripods are simply not an option if I want to get interesting pictures, (I am no Edward Weston taking dancers with a 4x5 Graflex nor Nick Nixon shooting school children with an 8x10 Deardorf).<P>And to Mr. Lee: a threaded socket is put on the Leica to allow a Leicavit or motor drive to be attached, not for a tripod. (Maybe a monopod, but only under extreme circumstances).

[el_fang]

<i>If you don't believe you can get superior pictures with Leica, then sell out.</i>

<p>I use Leicas because I *like* using them to photograph, I can afford them, and I can tolerate their need to be repaired every other month. But "superior pictures"? I can think of plenty of ways to get "superior pictures" with far less expense and hassle, and not even that much more bulk.</p>

[blakley]

<i>My only point, for the last time, was that the OP was misinterpreting the results as evidence that RFs are superior to SLRs given the absence of a mirror.</i>

<p>

In the thread in question, Asher, I was the OP and I did not say anything remotely like what you attribute to me here. I did <i>not</i> say that RFs are "superior to SLRs", <i>nor</i> did I say that the experiment was evidence of any claim other than those actually tested by Timothy Edberg. What I <i>did</i> say was that <i>my</i> Leica low-light portraits were sharper than <i>my</i> Nikon low-light portraits, that I had come to believe that mirror motion was <i>one</i> of the factors causing my Nikon photos to be less sharp, and that Edberg's article <i>tended</i> to support my conclusion.

<p>

Those of you who are interested can read what I <i>actually</i> wrote in the original post <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00N72T">here</a>.

[blakley]

<i>And to Mr. Lee: a threaded socket is put on the Leica to allow a Leicavit or motor drive to be attached, not for a tripod.</i>

<p>

I don't have a motor drive, Bill, but I do have (and use) a Leicavit, and the Leicavit most certainly does not use the threaded socket. In fact, the Leicavit replaces the entire baseplate in which the threaded socket is located - AND it has a threaded socket in ITS OWN base, so that you can put the camera AND the Leicavit on a tripod.

[michael s.]

No fair confusing us with the facts, Bob. :)

[vivek iyer]

Lawrence, On digital, one of the advantages is the near instant feedback. You can check rather easily if there is loss of details due to shakes or not (Subject movement is another matter).

 

If you look around, there are big improvements with tripods as well. Search for carbon fiber based tripods/monopods. Not a big problem to carry them, pack them or use them. There is also something called a QR (quick release) plate available that facilitates the mounting and dismounting of cameras on monopods/tripods.

[vivek iyer]

Check this out! :)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2336805

[asher]

OK Bob, whatever you say. Have a lovely evening.

[ron_breeze2]

Lawrence I've never bought a tripod that came with a warning not to use it with a

rangefinder. As any piece of equipment the photographer applies it to the situation to

produce the best image posiible. I prefer hand held photography, if possible, and for the

most part Leica lenses provide me with that ability, however, there are times when I feel that

a tripod is essential to producing an image that is sharp and carry an old, small, German

tripod from the 50's that provides that stability. You are the photographer the choice of

equipment is yours, why let someone else determine that for you?

[harris_j_sklar]

I do not understand this argument about not using a tripod with a Leica. Consider the fact that there are those of us who may be a bit older and are not as steady as you younger people. Are we to stop using our Leicas because at times we need a tripod? I have used tripods on and off for over 50 years, on SLRS and rangefinder cameras and it all depends on the circumstances of the shoot. Last time I used a tripod with my Leica was on Herald Square in NY late at night while capturing lights of moving vehicles with long exposures.

[Troll]

"I do have (and use) a Leicavit, and the Leicavit most certainly does not use the threaded socket. In fact, the Leicavit replaces the entire baseplate in which the threaded socket is located"<P>Oh, mein Gott! Open mouth and insert foot. I've been using a Leicavit on my IIIf since the '50s, and I do know better.<P>My deepest apologies, Bob -- I'm just so ashamed!<div></div>

[john_elder1]

I wonder why Leica made tripods and tripod ball heads BEFORE leica made their SLR line of cameras????

[john_elder1]

I guess it couldn't have anything to do with the threaded socket for tripod mounting in the baseplate????

[blakley]

I think the picture more than atones for the mild faux pas, Bill. A tripod certainly would not have made it better. Nice!

[george_b1]

I've used Leica rangefinders exclusively since 1945. I started using a tripod in the mid-late 1950's for landscape and architectural photos with 90mm and 135mm lenses and Kodachrome. I bought one of the Leitz Tiltall tripods and a large ball head and have used them since WHEN THE SITUATION REQUIRED!

 

The arbitrary throw-off of those who profess that their M-series are only for snap-shooting is slightly disingenious. My chromes that were taken using a tripod project very well. Isn't that the desired outcome?

 

No - - I don't advocate trudging through the wilderness carrying a tripod. I do advocate using one for those deliberate and preplanned shots using long lenses.

[wai_leong_lee]

To Asher:

 

If EVERY experiment is flawed at some level, does it mean logically that you reject the results of all experiments?

 

If so, there's no point discussin the merits of any experiment then, is there?

 

Well, unless you can prove convincingly otherwise, ie with more than just sweeping claims of experimental flaws, I'm inclined to accept the results of the experiment, that SLR mirror slap is indeed a significant factor which explains the difference in sharpness in the test.

 

I also accept that it may not make a difference in the real world, with all the other factors photographers are faced with.

 

And I agree with one of the posters in the other thread that, it's precisely because SLR manufacturers realised this that they came up with technologies to reduce mirror slap.

[wai_leong_lee]

El:

 

Fine with me if you want to hang on to your Leicas even if they don't help you take better pictures.

 

PS. No Indians vs arrows stuff please-- else we'll really digress.

[el_fang]

<i>If EVERY experiment is flawed at some level, does it mean logically that you reject the results of all experiments?</i>

<p>No, it just means that you take the results of all experiments with a critical grain of salt. This is a very basic principle that anyone who has any basic training in science learns very early. The official name of this principle is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">The Scientific Method</a>. Taken from the link:</p>

 

<p><i>Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results.</i></p>

 

<p>To conduct an experiment such as this, and willfully or otherwise introduce a major flaw into it by testing cameras that are 20 years old, injects bias into the results. To illustrate using an analogy, say a laboratory publishes a study asserting that a certain class of anticancer drugs does not work as advertised, drawing the conclusion from their test group of patients that showed no difference in average post-diagnosis survival from the control group that was given a placebo. Then, upon reading a little closer, you discover that the study was funded by a drug company, and tested anticancer drugs developed by a competitor - that were marketed over 20 years ago.</p>

 

<p>For the lay person, the phrase "don't believe everything you read" is a pretty good distillation of the Scientific Method.</p>