Your slowest handheld shutter speed for RZ67+110mm

[shineofleo]

<p>Tripod is nice, but it is inconvenience. I took some handheld shots with my standard 110mm/2.8 around 1/60, and the result was not bad.</p>

<p>So I am wondering if any RB67 user could put your comment? What is your slowest shutter speed handheld? Take 110mm lense for example. Thanks.</p>

<p>Leon</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>For the 110, 1/60th is what I can do consistently, but I usually try 1/125th to make sure it is sharp even if I don't have a solid shooting position.<br>

Christoph</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>1/60 jives with the 1/f rule of thumb (for 35mm). Not sure if the extra weight of the RB is a help or a hinderance. It may depend on which VF you are using.</p>

<p>But it will all depend on your print size. To print at the same dpi as 35mm film, you'll be enlarging the negative the same amount (and getting a print 2x as big.) If you try to look at it at the same distance as a smaller 35mm print, you may see handshake blurring. (Did that make any sense?)</p>

<p>In any case, I've noticed that mirror slap comes in with a vengeance at 1/15, so I stay away from there.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It seems a complete waste of time and money to use a medium format camera for the photographic equivalent of plinking at cans. At best, you get no better quality than from a 35mm camera, at three times the cost. If you compare an hand-held shot at 1/500 to one at the same speed using a tripod, you'll still see a difference.</p>

<p>Most people shake at about 15-20 arc-minutes/second, some more, few less. Your pulse alone will account for over 1 arc-minute/second. People who get "good shots" at slow speeds are shooting where sharpness doesn't count, shooting enough to get "lucky", or just don't care.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The effect of camera shake is about the same for the same field of view and same sized print. While a medium format image is twice as big as 35mm (on the short axis), the lenses are proportionately longer. If you make bigger prints (which is the main reason for shooting mf), camera shake is proportionately greater.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>While I do agree that handholding a MF camera will not produce optimal results, I disagree that it will not produce anything better than 35mm. I find that handholding can produce very nice results.<br>

Its not an RZ67 but with my P67II I can hand hold down to about 1/30 with the 105mm if I need to. Its not 100% sharp but you get a very usable neg out of it.</p>

[shineofleo]

<p>Thanks for the information. Yes I prefer tripod for MF to get a nice shot and enlarge it, which is why I use an MF camera. But sometimes, the position is awkward so it leaves me no choice but hold it by hand.</p>

<p>As Christoph said, I then would try to put the shutter to 1/125 and use my light meter to get a proper F number, if possible.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Leon</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I recently shot RB67+127mm handheld indoors with Delta 3200 at 1/60th (possibly even 1/30th?) and 50% of the shots were sharp. the ones that were not sharp were due to focus and model movement.</p>

<p>...and i have to disagree with Eward about the futility of shooting MF handheld - although I do know where he is coming from in regards to shooting subjects handheld which can just as easily be photographed using a tripod.</p>

<p><strong>For any given sharpness level, bigger negative will always be better.</strong></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I didn't say it was futile, rather no better than 35mm apart from relatively less grain. Why spend all that money on equipment and film unless you can make a real difference? If you must forgo a tripod, load up ISO 400 film and hope for a sunny day.</p>

[ed_sawyer]

<p>I can do 1/30th pretty consistently getting good sharp results with the RZ/110 with grip and prism and motor drive. A lot of times at that speed it's subject movement that is the issue more than camera movement.<br>

There's tons of shots that one would never get if one was limited to a tripod all the time. In fact I shoot the RZ almost exclusively hand-held.</p>

[rothelle]

<p>The slowest I've ever did use and still today was with RZ67, RB67 and Pentax 67 was 1/15 and the image was sharp without any movements. I like the heavy feel of Pentax 67 cameras. They work for me. I got great biceps so go do some more curls...</p>

[gareth_williams2]

<p>I found the Left hand grip accessory very helpful in keeping the camera steady. </p>

[doug elick]

<p>There's a big difference between truly hand-holding and using the strap. I've found I can get a much more stable stance with the strap bearing most of the camera's weight and the body against my chest. In this respect, waist level finders are a real asset and TLRs reign supreme.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>Steady hands make all the difference, but the guideline for handholding with film (medium format or 35mm) is that you should shoot at one over the focal length or shorter exposures. So for the 110mm, 1/125 sec should be your safest bet for "acceptable" sharpness unless you know you have exceptionally steady hands. Yes, the field of view is equivalent to a 50mm lens on 35mm film, but you're shooting medium format for the extra resolution, which you'll jeopardize (unless you have extremely steady hands) by handholding at 1/60 sec.</p>

<p>Digital has at least four times the resolution of film so the rule for digital, unless you have lens stabilization, is to shoot one divided by the focal length times two or shorter exposures (1/125 sec for 50mm on aps-c or full frame).</p>