Thoughts while comtemplating my tripod ...

[wai_leong_lee]

I don't think so. Why don't you try shooting 1/15 on a Leica and on a Canon A1 or other SLR with mirror slap. Do it enough times and the random errors by your own movement, breathing, misfocus, etc. might even out so you can make a real comparison.

 

And by the way, one can shoot braced too (eg on a ledge, against a tree, etc) so the finding is not just limited to tripod based shooting.

[Brad_]

<img src= "http://www.wylieview.com/forums/non-cgi/emoticons/twirl.gif">

[asher]

<p>Give it up, Wai-Leong.<p>

I've been shooting for many years, RF and SLR and TLR, film and digital, in all kinds of

light, with and without a tripod, with a kid on my back pulling on my ears; while driving a

car down Beacon St. in Boston rush hour traffic; hanging my camera off a tree branch for a

self-portrait in Prague in 1988; while skiing down from the peak of Sunshine ski resort in

Banff in 1981; lying on the deck of a yacht sailing upwind in Lake Ontario (1982) and the

Atlantic Ocean (1990s); dancing at weddings, drink in one hand, camera in the other; and

just this past summer chasing my kids while IN a lake (without a boat), camera in hand,

held high, no underwater housing...<p>

 

Please believe me that all this pseudoscience, microscopic examination of sharpness in

this vs. that is time-wasting, energy-sapping hogwash: it detracts from making

photographs. I'm sorry I re-opened this stinky can of worms. Please please re-close it?!

[el_fang]

<i>You have agreed that mirror vibration affects sharpness in your various posts.</i>

<p>Actually, I said I have no doubt the Timothy Edberg's test results are accurate, <b>for the specific cameras he tested</b>. You cannot reasonably extrapolate those results to include modern dSLR cameras with their smaller mirrors (cropped models), VR/IS and better mirror counterbalancing mechanisms, any more than you can conclude 2007 passenger cars are unsafe based on tests of the 1971 Ford Pinto.</p>

 

<p><i>It doesn't matter whether the cameras are 20 years old or 2 months old.</i></p>

<p>It does matter a great deal when technology and design have changed so much. To say otherwise is analogous to making the claim that safety wise, cars are no different today than they were 20 years ago, which is patently ridiculous.</p>

 

<p><i>I may point out that you have said that modern cameras have much less mirror vibration than 20-year old cameras. But have you conducted (or know of) independent scientific tests to validate this? If not, that's still just a hypothesis at this stage.</i></p>

 

<p>I don't need independent scientific tests when I have real-world experience that's far more applicable. I've shot an M6 and a 90/2.8 at 1/15 and slower. I've done the same with a D70 and a 70-200/2.8 VR, and most recently with a 1D and 70-200/2.8 IS. Hand held, it's no contest. On a tripod with the VR/IS feature turned off, no difference even at 100% magnification. In short, <b>mirror-induced vibration as a problem in real-world application has been effectively negated by modern technology - modern technology purposely ignored by Edberg, for dubious reasons.</b></p>

 

<p><i>I disagree with you that the choice of cameras is a flaw. To prove a hypothesis about mirror vibration, I must find cameras with mirror slap in the test set.</i></p>

 

<p>From <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bias" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster</a>:</p>

<p><i>Main Entry:</i> bias, <i>Definition 3d(2):</i> systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.</p><div></div>

[blowingsky]

Lawrence,

 

Yes, I remember waiting for the light. And setting up a point of view, careful framing, composition and patience. I also remember test rolls to find how my shutter aligns with exposure meters and the greyscale.

 

I've gone astray.

 

Ironically, I was *just* in the process of putting my Manfrotto 3221W tripod and 3030 head up on eBay so I could afford a Sony eBook reader. Thanks for the wake up call.

[wai_leong_lee]

El-- you're using definition of bias out of context.

 

If I want to test the response of black people to a certain drug, I can't very well test it on white people.

 

That's not bias to me.

 

You assert that Edberg is making claims which cannot be extrapolated, but you have ignored my point on that-- which is that the article is appearing in a commercial magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus, some eye-candy headline is to be expected. I also suggested that you should check the conclusion to determine whether he claims boldly that his result is applicable to ALL SLRs/DSLR's-- have you done that?

 

You've also conveniently quoted me out of context. I said it doesn't matter whether the cameras are 20 years old or two months old, *if they have mirror vibration*. The world is not just Rebels and D70's, there are still new cameras produced (such as cameras from Kiev) even today which still have significant mirror vibration because they're not as technologically advanced as the DSLRs from Japan. And even modern medium format SLR's like Hasselblad H series-- do you doubt they have significant mirror vibration? Which is why the context of my statement is so important-- that the age of the camera is not as important as the vibration it has.

 

I note you've conceded that mirror vibration is a factor affecting sharpness, which is precisely why manufacturers came up with IS/VR technology + technologies to reduce vibration. End of statement there as far as I'm concerned.

 

But you have produced no scientific evidence to back up your claims that mirror vibration has been reduced to the point of insignificance in modern DSLRs. You've only cited your own "real world" experience. Which a lot of people here have in terms of handholding Leicas at 1/8 or 1/15. So are we going to battle it out with your "real-world" experience vs our "real-world" experience? I see no point-- we both believe only what we have experienced and which cannot be refuted or denied by the other because we can't access the same experience.

 

Lastly-- one would question why there is need for mirror lockup even in modern SLR's if there's no mirror vibration as you claim.

[Allen Herbert]

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.

 

Funny. You forgot to mention the black cloak you can stick over your head....pretty cool thing to do when you are having a smoke.

 

My mate Vivitar wears one at night when his doing his special err work.

[marc_bergman1]

Wai-Leong Lee wrote in response to El Fang,

 

"I note you've conceded that mirror vibration is a factor affecting sharpness,"

"Lastly-- one would question why there is need for mirror lockup even in modern SLR's if there's no mirror vibration as you claim."

 

It is one thing to misquote, or misunderstand the response of someone, but how does one square these two diametrically opposed statements written by you in the same response?

[blakley]

<i>Debate on the scientific method aside, Wai-Leong - given the Edberg article is published Nov/Dec 2007 - do you have any theories on why he chose to test 20 year old film SLRs over currently available and top-selling dSLR cameras such as the Rebel XTi or Nikon D80?</i>

<p>

If you had taken the time to walk over to the newsstand and pick up the magazine, El, you would have seen that there's no need for theories, and you would have been spared the effort of concocting paranoid fantasies. Edberg tested the cameras he uses.

[el_fang]

<i>If I want to test the response of black people to a certain drug, I can't very well test it on white people.</i>

<p>That's perfectly fine - until you title your study "The effect of drug X on humans." You still don't get it, do you?</p>

 

<i><p>You assert that Edberg is making claims which cannot be extrapolated, but you have ignored my point on that-- which is that the article is appearing in a commercial magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus, some eye-candy headline is to be expected.</i></p>

<p>Well good, at least you agree with me that Edberg is misleading in writing the title of his article. Misleading information is misleading information, regardless of the type of publication in which it appears.</p>

 

<p><i>I also suggested that you should check the conclusion to determine whether he claims boldly that his result is applicable to ALL SLRs/DSLR's-- have you done that?</i></p>

 

<p>I only accused him of being misleading, I haven't yet accused him of outright lying.</p>

 

<p><i>You've also conveniently quoted me out of context. I said it doesn't matter whether the cameras are 20 years old or two months old, *if they have mirror vibration*.</i></p>

<p>Which is ridiculous unless you're going to test every single SLR camera ever made and being made, which is obviously beyond the scope of the article. However, if Edberg wanted to write something remotely relevant to his readership, at least he could have made a <u>minimal effort</u> to test <u>at least one</u> of the more popular dSLR cameras being made and sold today. It's not THAT hard to get your hands on one.</p>

 

<p><i>The world is not just Rebels and D70's, there are still new cameras produced (such as cameras from Kiev) even today which still have significant mirror vibration because they're not as technologically advanced as the DSLRs from Japan. And even modern medium format SLR's like Hasselblad H series-- do you doubt they have significant mirror vibration?</i></p>

<p>How many people do you think use Kiev and Hasselblad H series SLRs, compared with Rebel XTi's and Nikon D40's? According to their <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/back_issues.htm" target="_blank">back issues database</a>, the last time the name "Hasselblad" was even mentioned in their rag was back in 2003. "Kiev"? Nada! The last 4 cameras officially "tested" by the magazine include the 1D MkIII, Rebel XTi, 5D, and 1D MkII, so that should give you some idea of their target audience. So why not make this article relevant to that readership?</p>

 

<p><i>But you have produced no scientific evidence to back up your claims that mirror vibration has been reduced to the point of insignificance in modern DSLRs.</i></p>

<p>Cameras were designed to be used to take pictures. Instead of harping on about "scientific evidence," why don't you do what I and many others have done - try any modern dSLR body with a 70-200/2.8 VR/IS and then your Leica and a 90/2.8 at the same low-light event. Then compare how many keepers you get. I think you'll soon find out why, for most working professionals who must bring back the pictures, the 70-200/2.8 VR/IS is THE bread and butter lens. Consider yourself lucky to be an amateur who has the luxury of screwing up at your leisure with whatever you feel like using, with no consequences whatsoever. That's the difference between you and a pro.</p>

[el_fang]

<i>El, you would have seen that there's no need for theories, and you would have been spared the effort of concocting paranoid fantasies.</i>

<p><a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sarcasm" target="_blank">sar-casm, <i>noun:</i>(2) A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.</a></p>

 

<p><i>Edberg tested the cameras he uses.</i></p>

<p>Right, and that excuse gives his article 100% credibility and sudden, complete relevance to the people who buy the magazine (refer to "sarcasm" defintion, above). I suppose you'd have been just as eagerly lapping up his drivel if he owned nothing but a Pentax 67?</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

El

 

1. I get it. I just don't think you're right.

 

2 You have not checked the conclusion of the article. I doubt Edberg would be dumb enough to claim his results are applicable to ALL SLRs/DSLR's.

 

In fact, if you read scientific journals, you'll know that most papers wind up by discussing the key findings and their limitations, what was done well and what was not done well, and suggest directions for future research. Which means that most scientists are aware that they can't make sweeping statements even with their rigorously studies.

 

Hence, unless Edberg was stupid enough to make ridiculous claims, I see no problem with his experiment.

 

3. You've agreed the age of the cameras tested is irrelevant after I pointed out even modern SLR's with mirror vibration, but that the cameras used were not "relevant" to their readership. Well, I guess that question is for the editors then, and for the readers to write to complain if it's not relevant to them.

 

I doubt you read it though, since you didn't even know why Edberg chose his cameras (a simple reason-- he owned them). So are you going to write in to complain about their irrelevance to you?

 

4. You have produced no scientific evidence to back up your claims that mirror vibration has been reduced to the point of insignificance in modern DSLRs. You have not answered my question about why modern SLR's still have MLU function if things are indeed as you claimed.

 

You have only talked about your "real-world" experience of modern DSLR's. Well, we have "real-world" experiences too. But at least Edberg has done an experiment with published results to back his assertion. You don't have any.

 

One thus wonders if mirror vibration reduction is as much as Canon/Nikon's marketing literature claims, which unfortunately has not been independently or scientifically verified but has been pushed upon all of us consumers to the point where it becomes gospel truth.

 

5. Pros choose camera systems based on many factors. SLR's won out in the battle 30 years ago against RF, even when mirror vibration was a factor, even before IS/VR technology came in. You ought to know the reasons-- flexibility, ability to see through the lens, flash capabilities, ruggedness, etc.

 

Hence, your assertion of using SLR's because they have VR to capture low-light images is baseless.

 

6. You know nothing about me, so don't make any assumptions about whether I'm an amateur or a pro.

[terry_rory]

If my memory serves me correctly, my M6 TTL had a threaded shutter release for the purpose of a remote release cable and it also had shutter settings of 1 sec, 2 sec, 4 sec and Bulb. Of course (as already discussed) it had a standard 1/4" threaded tripod socket.

 

The M also has the small convenience over an SLR in that the viewfinder eyepiece does not need to be covered if shooting on a tripod in daylight. Unlike the mirror/prism set-up of an SLR, no stray light can creep in from the eyepiece of the RF viewfinder.

 

So it would seem that the Leica M is quite at home on a tripod if the customer chooses to/needs to use it this way.

 

What anyone says about whether it is 'wrong' to use Leica M on a tripod is totally irrelevant. It is also totally irrelevant if Ralph Gibson never uses a tripod or if HCB never used one. All that matters is that you can use the camera whichever way YOU choose.

[asher]

<p>Wai-Leong wrote:<i>"Pros choose camera systems based on many factors. SLR's won

out

in the battle 30 years ago against RF"</i><p>

Actually, a lot of pros use both SLRs and RF, mostly digital and some film (mostly medium

format and some 35mm), sometimes with a tripod and sometimes not, all depending on

the needs of the assignment and the desires of the client. Only amateurs (or inexperienced

and/or immature pros) engage in these pointless "gear battles" so that they can feel the

warm fuzzies about their choice of gear.

[jeroen dommisse]

Gee, why don't you lot go out and shoot something. Take your tripod if you want - or don't.

[david j.lee]

this is the test.<div></div>

[david j.lee]

that looks terrible! let me try again later.

[matt_long]

El Fang wrote:

 

"I use Leicas because I *like* using them to photograph..."

 

Trevor Hare wrote:

 

"All that matters is that you can use the camera whichever way YOU choose."

 

Do you realize that if people simply followed these two snippets of common-sense

wisdom that probably 70% of the threads on this forum would be irrelevant?

[david j.lee]

one more time<div></div>

[michael s.]

Matt said:<p>

<< ... <i>if people simply followed these two snippets of common-sense wisdom that probably 70% of the threads on this forum would be irrelevant?</i> ... >> <p>

 

Any estimate, Matt, as to the current percentage ? :-)