No Tripod--35mm SLR vs. MF Rangefinder

[matt_shimao]

Hello,

 

I've searched the archives for the answer to this question without

success....I am considering a MF rangefinder for handheld people

pictures. I understand that the larger film size of MF is a definite

benefit. I also understand that a rangefinder will allow for better

sharpness, since the mirror and shutter in an SLR cause more

vibration. However, I also understand that using a tripod makes a

huge difference.

 

My question is: Does the significant decrease in sharpness caused by

shooting handheld make the choice of format negligible to the final

result?

 

If it matters, my 35mm SLR is a Contax Aria with 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4,

and 85mm 2.8 lenses. The MF rangefinder I am thinking about is a

Mamiya (either a 6 or 7). I will rarely print larger than 8x10.

However, I have found that I sometimes like to crop the negative quite

a bit (sometimes printing just a third of the frame).

 

Thank you very much,

 

Matt

[douglas_cummings]

Depends on the shutter speed and how steady you are. Rent a Mamiya 7

see how focusing a rangefinder is so different than an SLR. If you are quick and obtain proper focus, HH will make no difference-- as long

as you shoot 1/60th on up...

[jim_chow]

Leaf shutters in MF cameras don't cause the vibration (focal plane shutters might cause a little). It's from the mirror of slr's, which can be locked up. Since you don't intend on enlarging over 8x10, you might be better off w/ a 35mm rangefinder (Contax G/Leica M). Better to concentrate on your framing technique and just crop less. MF, with it's shallower DOF (meaning slower shutter speeds) only makes handholding more difficult vs. 35mm.

[tom_raymondson]

This past summer I was shooting New Mexico with a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder and a tripod. In the Taos Pueblo tripods were not allowed, so I shot hand held. The only difference I can see in the 8x10 prints is the reduction in DOF because the faster shutter speeds required the lens to be nearly wide open.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

If you rarely print larger than 8x10 then 3200 delta for black and white prints and NHG 800 for color prints should solve most of your DOF problems and cropping in 1/3 will still be better than 35mm with same emulsions.

 

To answer your question....no, if you could have two negs with equal "shake" the MF neg will still be less grainy and therefore apparently SHARPER.

[andreas_carl]

I use the Fuji rangefinders, sometimes handheld, sometimes on a tripod. Either case the negatives are stunning and blow away the 35mm competition. I use tripods only when I am "forced" to, i.e. if I want to use slow shutter speeds, either if it is dark or if for some reason I want to maximize DOF.

[alan_dale]

<i>....I also understand that using a tripod makes a huge

difference.</i><p> From my experience, it does. But who likes to use a tripod, especially when you have such mobile, ergonomic cameras availible? I like having the freedom to compose a shot, lean forward and to the right, whatever, and seeing how it changes through the viewfinder so I can understand why you want to do without a tripod.<p>

<i> My question is: Does the significant decrease in sharpness caused by shooting handheld make the choice of format negligible to the final

result?</i><p>

My experince has been -- the bigger film will deliver an image that "looks sharper" in the final print if all other things are equal. Some cameras might have more vibration than others. I've found a 2 1/4 TLR is easier to hold steady than a 35mm SLR.<p>

<i>I will rarely print larger than 8x10. However, I have found that I sometimes like to crop the negative

quite a bit (sometimes printing just a third of the frame).</i><p> Before you buy a new MF camera, maybe try improving some of your exposure habits. Double check focus - focus past the point you want to focus on, roll back before it and then focus to it. I've found this little ritual ensures that I will be more careful in noticing where my point of focus really lies. Stick to faster shutter speeds and sacrifice DOF. Use faster film. Exhale before you press the button -- press it gradually and gently. Lock your arms and legs in a steady fashion --- don't shoot pictures mid stride. Compose more carefully -- if you are cropping out 2/3 of the nergative, maybe make multiple exposures (wider views and closeups) to pick from when printing and avoid radical cropping since it will decrease the amount of film you are using to make your print and thereby degrade image quality. Hold still- even if shooting at 1/250th. I try to make these things a habit and since I have I have noticed a dramatic decrease in the numbers of unsharp pictures on my contact sheets. I often employ wide apertures so my DOF might be thin, but its sharp where I want it sharp.

[jeff_drew3]

A snapshot of people from any MFRF will print well. The MFRFs are larger to hold than most 35mm SLRs yet are easy to shoot. FYI: Fuji puts 2 shutter buttons on the GW series, 1 for vertical hold, 1 horizontal. Technique is everything, controlling the variables is the issue. IE: Combinations of Bigger camera, slow lens, slow film vs. smaller camera, smaller faster lens, faster film: gee I wonder which is better? Consider the conundrum, then consider all the variables and the camera + lens + film are nothing but tools to capture the moment.

IMHO: camera support helps all images - especially digital(!). Sometimes, tho', tripods etc are not convenient. Enlargement factors of errors are less pronounced in a bigger negative.

[jim_mitrovgenis]

I recently got back from a trip to Greece where I took just about all my gear, both 35mm and medium format. Let's compare the Canon 1N with 28-70L lens, not including the battery pack, it weighs in at 1,735 grams. The Fuji GW690III weighs in at 1,460 grams. I ended up using the Fuji for just about everything and did a lot of handholding as I ran into problems at a few places where they didn't want to let me use a tripod. Just be sure you have a variety of film speeds to take care of those DOF problems. That 1N has lost a great deal of its duty time to the Fuji, either with or without a tripod. There's no doubt in my mind that I get better pictures out of medium format, but of course it could be that I just take more time with it also. Slowing down is fun.

[ken_schwarz1]

If you find that you are cropping your 35mm image to fill the frame with interesting subject matter, then the M7 will probably be a step in the wrong direction. You need to either get a longer lens for your 35mm camera or overcome whatever is blocking you (physically or psychologically) and get in closer to your subject matter.

 

The M7 excels in wideangle, but for me at least, it is much harder to use for fast-moving close subject work compared to 35mm. It doesn't focus particularly close, you can only check focus on the very center of the frame, and it has shallow depth of field. You will find that simple misfocusing is much more a problem than camera shake.

 

This isn't to knock the M7. I use it all the time, but I've come to realize that it's first a 6x7 (big film, shallow DoF), then it's a rangefinder (good for wide-angle and low light, lousy in other respects), and finally it's reasonably light-weight (easy to carry, *normal* amount of camera shake).

 

In practice, I get my best results on a compact tripod, either taking my time with landscapes, or setting up for interesting city backgrounds and simply waiting for elements to fall into place before I release the shutter.

[richard jepsen]

Matt, Ken's comment concerning the M-7 is insightful. There is a tonality improvement with medium format at 8x10 and smaller enlargements. Tonality, sharpness, camera speed, DOF, etc are interlocking tradeoffs best resolved by personnel experience with a little help from the net.

[richard jepsen]

Mat, good advice but few direct answers to your question;

 

"Does the significant decrease in sharpness caused by shooting handheld make the choice of format negligible to the final result?"

 

The answer is yes, format relating to camera shake seems negligible in your circumstances. Shooting with a 35mm shutter speed of 1/60 and higher should not cause a signficant decrease in sharpness. Using only 1/3 of a small format negative is more of an quality issue than camera shake. Capture the momment people pictures typically are easier with 35mm. In addition, 35mm glass is fast for the price (Leica excluded). Leica excels in low light and decisive moments involving people. Leica feels better but a Contax G-2 with autofocus and nice glass works too. Fuji rangefinders are a cheap way to experience medium format in the type of photography you mentioned. Experience gives the best answer to your question.

 

For my syle photography (TLR) I use a tripod to maximise DOF, composition, and sharpness.

[matt_shimao]

Thanks for all of the great advice above. I had not thought of many of these points. I took Douglas' advice above and actually rented a Mamiya 7 and my impressions are: 1) I agree that it is much harder to focus on objects moving towards or away from you; 2) it is also harder to focus in general since the plane of focus does not "snap" into focus like with a SLR; 3)for me the size of the M7 actually makes it easier to hold and press the shutter--personally, I really like the ergonomics of the M7--it is easy for me to release the shutter smoothly and there is virtually zero shutter lag.

 

I also tried the Fuji GA645Zi in the store. I think only Fuji and Mamiya make rangefinders with built-in meters--this is an important convenience for me. I liked the small physical dimensions of the Fuji. However, the autofocus did not inspire my confidence--the focusing was a bit inconsistent, especially with dark objects. Also, the lens is slower than the M7 lens.

 

The Leica is very nice, but for me the holdability of the M7 is better.

 

Although I was impressed with the results I got from the M7, I also understand the limitations of this camera more fully. In the end I decided to buy a M7II. Since I will print 8x10s, I will use my 35mm on a tripod when I need a lot of DOF. I will also continue to use my 35mm for "street" photos, which I like to do occasionally. (I agree that I need to work on my "street" technique--I have a tendency to "zero-in" on my main subject and when I get my negatives back, I am surprised by all of the other stuff that I ended up with.) The M7II, will help me to get better results for posed people photos and other handheld photos that do not require a lot of DOF.

 

Best regards,

 

Matt

[Spearhead]

The M7 is a fine camera for handheld street photos, I have been using it for that purpose for well over a year. The only issue is the lens speed. Focusing is easy once one becomes used to it - I learned on rangefinders and still find them easier to focus than SLRs. Also, the proof is in the photos, not the camera (see my website, the last two categories are all M7, and how come so few people posting on these forums have photography websites?)

[frank_ward]

Matt, The Mamiya 6 or 7 will allow for handholdong down to very slow shutter speeds. I've owned both and can say that they can match any SLR for handholding. I now have the Mam7 and a Fuji 645Zi which both have slow lenses, but the lack of mirror slap and the built in flash on the Zi help make those grab shots worth while. I will admit that I use a tripod as often as possible and will grab a monopod when there is no room for a tripod. I do like to print at 20X24 so a little stability goes a long way. Frank

[jeff_drew3]

To Jeff Spirer's question: "Why I don't have a photography web site?"

Well, let's see: Time is an issue - I work 60hrs /week on other companies' web sites & networks & WANS. When I get a few minutes for a break, I log in here to "getaway fromitall" and talk with people I'd rather be with and discuss fun things beyond computers. Secondly, when I go home, I like to have a "wee dram 'o' scotch" and totally zone-out of computers/websites/internet and zone-in family and hobbies like photography and astronomy. Conflicts arise when I get those things out of order. I can do a web site and show off electronically, but I choose not to at this time. I've exhibited and sold in the past, but I also burned out after several years of trying to do it all too quick. Now I prefer looking at my images on a light table or on a wall. But I wholeheartedly support anybody's desire to build websites and show there. C'est la vie!