Hand held Vs. Tripod

[ty_mickan]

<p>well, obviously our experiences have differed. I am not able to shoot as slow with my D3 or F5 as I can with my MP/M7. Maybe it's the size difference, but there are conflicting views there also. I also find that I can successfully handhold my EP-2 at remarkably slow speeds also. </p>

[imagesbybrl]

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

[imagesbybrl]

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

[imagesbybrl]

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

[imagesbybrl]

<p>To all, sorry for the duplicate entries. I use dial up and many times there is a lenghty delay so I'm not sure if my entry was submiited. So I hit the submit button too many times. My most sincere apologies to all.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><br />"... li<em>ghtweight thingies are just as bad as ones that weigh half a ton. Add the right amount of mass, i.e. inertia, but not enough to put your muscles into a tremour, and you have the ideal handholdable camera."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It makes sense. I have always thought it, but only applied to normal vs. pro bodies in 35mm format (!). With the <em>only</em> exception of Mamiya 6 and 35mm format, I <em>always</em> use tripods.</p>

<p>Could it mean that e.g. a Nikon FM2 is "harder" to use hand-held than (e.g.) a Mamiya 6/7, a Rollei SLR or a Bronica GS1, slow speed-wise? Like Ty, I tend to believe that my experience is in favour of Mamya 6/7 type cameras. (I have always wanted to favour Leica Ms too, but I`m afraid I can`t).</p>

<p>(I suspect that ergonomics are a factor, too, but we can leave it out).</p>

<p>I also tend to think (don`t ask me why) that leaf shutters are an advantage, too, over focal plane courtains. Am I wrong? What do you think?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ergonomics do indeed play a large role in this.<br><br>Shutters do not. Not as long as you are handholding.<br>Again: do not understimate the magnitude of the movement even 'rock steady' hands are constantly in. Compared to anything the camera can do to not keep still, it is ENORMOUS.<br><br>Take handholding out of the equation, and shutter type, mirror slap and anything else the camera itself might contribute are left for consideration. A leaf shutter distributes/dissipates the energy of its blades moving in different directions, while that of a focal plane shutter is all concentrated in one direction. The mass of a focal plane shutter's curtains may be more than that of the five or six leaf shutter blades too, i don't know (though i think so). The moving bits of the mechanisms that set those curtains or blades in motion too may be different in this respect. So yes: there is a difference.<br>Whether that difference is noticeable depends on how well the makers of these machines have managed to deal with this.

[johne37179]

<p>One of the finest wildlife photographers I knew never used a tripod -- even on long slow shutter shots. The reason is that he would trek into remote locations for weeks at a time and a tripod was too much of a burden to lug along. What he did do was make small (about 1 gallon) muslin bags that he would fill with sand or small gravel at the location. He would nestle the camera into the bag to hold it still -- much the same way long range target shooter do. This was as effective as any tripod. I remember shooting with him when he whipped out his bag, filled it with gravel from the shoulder of the road we had stopped along. Plunked the bag down on the hood of the truck (engine off) and got our a 600 mm lens and tool a 1/8 second exposure that was as crisp as any shot with a tripod. Since that time, I always carry a couple of empty gallon bags in my camera bag. Today they are disposable plastic instead of sewn muslin.</p>

[ray .]

With all the valid arguments advocating a tripod, it needs to be duly noted here that there is without question a

whole lot of value in medium format photography handheld, and that a huge number of great photographs

have been made and continue to be made, printed large and quite sharp, where the photographer was not using a tripod. I even

have photographs that are printed 17 inches wide where the subject was moving and I was moving, and

a lack of sharpness is not at all an issue about them. Let's not always get too hung up on technical perfection at the expense

of technical excellence that, while it may not be 100% as sharp as the camera is capable of, is still quite satisfactory. As has been said, there are all kinds of methods by which one can steady the body without need of a tripod.

[q.g._de_bakker]

All true.<br>But the question was <i>"Is there a big difference from hand holding or using a tripod"</i>

[ray .]

Yes Q.G., and I took a sidetrack from that. :)

[gandicarter]

<p>I've tried to find two of my photos that are on the web and were taken with approximately the same focal length, shutter speed, and aperture but where one was hand-held and the other was assisted with a tripod. The thought was that evidence would be more eloquent than verbal argument.</p>

<p>Then I realized that what is true for me is not necessarily true for others. It isn't even true for me on some days when I just don't seem to be as steady (I blame it on coffee!) as on others. I think I'm better than most photographers at holding the camera steady but I practice at it because I produce better images when I can work the way I want -- a part of which is without a tripod unless necessary.</p>

<p>I did not find two such images, but here are two that match the criteria except the aperture is quite different. Both are made with the same camera, both have similar shutter speeds and focal lengths, although they are not identical. One was handheld and the other a tripod. I did not cherry pick the handheld photo, all the other pictures on my website made with that camera (a Hasselblad) were handheld except the panorama "Athabasca Valley, Jasper National Park", even the other panos. The two images are <a href="http://suresoft.ca/G027/G27D.HTM">"Nairn Falls" in Gallery 27 </a> and <a href="http://suresoft.ca/G031/G31L.HTM">"Dismal Swamp, Blackfoot Grazing PRA, Alberta" in Gallery 31</a>, there is a "Zoomify" window at the bottom of the page so you can explore the images to the pixel level. (As you zoom in, it may take some time to refresh the window -- and you need a "flash viewer" for it to work, most people already have it) If the difference between tripod and handheld really is enormous, please indicate which is which and how you can tell the difference.</p>

<p>Note: The above is true when posted, if you are reading this a year from now it's only true for Galleries 27 to 31. There are no photographs from that camera in the earlier galleries and I reserve the right to make and post images made by that camera on a tripod in galleries 32 and greater -- which did not exist at the time this message was posted.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

 

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Gerald,<br>

The zoomify is great. I used it to scan the images and noticed that at approx 1/3 way back in both they are pretty sharp (the crack in the closest rock in the falls shot and some of the underbrush in the swamp shot), however when the image is panned away from the in focus area they seem very similar. Am I using the viewer incorrectly?</p>

<p>Randyc</p>

[gandicarter]

<p>Randy, you probably are using the viewer correctly, but can occasionally be slow to update.</p>

<p>The tripod is a wonderful device when the shutter speed is too slow for sharp handholding but it isn't necessary all the time. Slowing your camera work down by the use of a tripod is no better than simply observing your subject well. The point of both is to think about your subject and imagine how it would look best on a print (or whatever) taking into consideration camera position, lighting, aperture (depth of field), and all similar photographic variables you, the photographer, have control over.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

 

[gandicarter]

<p>Re-reading this thread has made me aware of a misunderstanding. When I see 1/125s or less, I think of less time, like 1/250s. I guess the poster meant 1/125s or slower. I hereby resolve to only use faster or slower to compare time values and suggest other photographers should consider doing so.</p>

<p>Sorry about that!</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

[charles_mason]

<p>"That's why it gives ample opportunity for the boastfull to boast about how good they are handholding their camera.<br />So if you want proof, see if you can find people boasting about how good they are handholding their camera. Both the "how good they are" and the "their camera" bit.<br />Should not be difficult. ;-)"<br>

Huh? I have no idea what this means. But generally looking through the post about the "Enormous" difference in handholding, I think this de Bakker man is baiting everyone... ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What that means is that if it were easy to handhold a camera and get good results, it would be nothing to boast about. People however <i>do</i> boast about how good they are (citing rifle practice and other such special training), or how good their cameras behave. So there must be some difficulty involved, mustn't it?<br>That in itself does not mean that it's impossible to handhold a camera and get good results. Nevertheless, the answer to the OP's question is that even though you can get good results, using a tripod you do, without fail, get better results.<br>That's not baiting, but an observation of how things happen to be. ;-)<br><br>Now we can argue about how much better. But i'm sure that it's at best (!) in the order of magnitude of half the resolution lost when handholding. And that i think definitely deserves being described as "enormous".<br><br>Obviously, the scale is open ended. There is no limit to how bad it can get. So i'd say the difference ranges from ENORMOUS to "most stupendous". (I know about the latter from personal experience also, and "most stupendous" is a cleaned up version of what i called myself for messing up so stupedously. ;-) )

[ty_mickan]

<p>"Using a tripod you do, without fail, get better results."</p>

<p>That statement is incorrect. This may be true for <em>you</em>, and how<em> you</em> define "better", but to some, image content is more important than image quality*. Robert Frank's "Elevator Girl" would have not existed had he used a tripod, and even if he had IS on his camera, a sharper image would have been detrimental to the overall mood and look of that image. Sharpness rarely has anything to do with a great photograph.</p>

<p>*in the sense of sharpness, chromatic aberration, falloff, boke, barrel distortion et al.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>"Sharpness rarely has anything to do with a great photograph."</p>

<p>That statement is incorrect. This may be true for <em>you</em>, and how<em> you</em> define "great", but to some, image sharpness is more important than image content*. Ansel Adam's "Moonrise, Hernandez" would have not existed had he not used a tripod, and even if he had a lensbaby on his camera, a blurrier image would have been detrimental to the overall mood and look of that image. Blurriness rarely has anything to do with a great photograph.</p>

<p>*in the sense of arty blurriness, weird cropping, flare, random composition, discordant colours et al.<br>

---------------<br>

Sorry Ty, couldn't resist. You really set yourself up for that!</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>I love some of these medium format threads Particularly some of the authoritative statements that are quite simply totally wrong!</p>

<p>Anyway, generally, a tripod will get you better results. Not having a tripod is no reason to not try and get the shot. The one times focal length rule does not apply to MF of any size and the "rule" differs for any sized format and camera. Heck when all PJ's were shooting MF they didn't use tripods! If, however, you want the optimum quality for your large prints, the best techniques, including camera stability, are absolutely vital.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>The most ENORMOUS thing here is the size of Mr de Bakker's ego.</p>

[david_smith35]

<i>"And I also find that a tripod is very important, and quite easily adaptable to my workflow <b>with these types of cameras</b>."</i><br><br>Again, it's not the camera that is the problem, but we are.<br>We are crap at holding still. We shake like mad.<br>A tripod will do wonders, <b>no matter what camera</b>, tiny or huge.<br><br>But if considering camera, lightweight thingies are just as bad as ones that weigh half a ton. Add the right amount of mass, i.e. inertia, but not enough to put your muscles into a tremour, and you have the ideal handholdable camera. That right amount of inertia is not provided by 35 mm cameras. Things like a Mamiya 645, Bronica, Rollei SLR, Hasselblad are just about right. A Mamiya RB/RZ is already a bit too much.<br><br>But still: it's not the camera. It's the photographer you have to worry about.<br><br>And yes: you often can't use a tripod. And we have to (!) do without. But if you could, the results would be so much better.

Don't confuse two things: noone said that it's always possible to use a tripod.<br>And yes, some people don't like to lug a tripod around, and others find it good fun not to use a tripod even if they could.<br><br>But that doesn't change the answer to the original question: the difference is ENORMOUS.<br>;-)

Certain cameras are much easier to hand hold than others - I know from experience that a twin lens reflex is easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds than a 6X6 SLR. A tripod will give more consistent results especially with longer lenses, but only if used with mirror lock up and a cable release.

[ben_hutcherson]

I can do pretty well with a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord down to 1/125, and have even managed acceptable results down to 1/30th(although my success rate is low at that speed).

 

I've never used a Hasselblad, but I find that I need to go to about 1/250 to get good shots handheld with my Bronica SQ-a, albeit I have decent ones at 1/125. I consider that a bare minimum speed with that camera and an 80mm lens.

 

I use WLFs almost exclusively in MF, and one of the things I find is that in combination with a good strap, the camera is inherently better supported than a 35mm camera held at eye level. I can rest the camera body/film back against my stomach, and there's plenty of padding there to help it :)

 

At the end of the day, though, when I look at my negatives and transparencies, the sharpest ones have come from a tripod, although I have some pretty darn good ones from using whatever makeshift support I could find(there are usually plenty of them out there if you keep your eyes open). At the same time, some of my most INTERESTING photos were either in situations that I couldn't have realistically used a tripod or happened fast enough that I'd have still been positioning the tripod by the time the moment passed. Although I strive for technical perfection as much as possible, if the alternative is missing the shot all together I'd still rather hand hold the camera. Let's also face it that even in 6x6, the film is large enough that slight motion blur can be hard to see unless you're looking at it through a loupe or pixel peeping a scan. I have negatives where I saw defects through the loupe, but still looked great at 11x14 and even passable at 16x20 if I didn't put a loupe on them :) . I also have to remember when pixel peeping a scan at 100%, I'm looking at my 30"(diagonal) Apple Cinema display which is probably 1/4 of a 6x6(if that much). That's significantly larger than I'd likely ever print a 6x6...or really anything.

 

I'll also add that I've handheld an RB67. It is a bit awkward and I avoid using my 65mm lens because it's too front heavy, but with a normalish lens(I don't have a 90mm, but use a 127mm for that purpose) it's certainly doable as long as I'm not focusing too far from infinity(for those not familiar, these are bellow focusing cameras, so the whole camera gets longer at closer distances). The mirror dampening on the RB is superb. I honestly was amazed the first time I shot one since I think the mirror is roughly 8x8, or at an absolute minimum would have to be 7x7. I've used 35mm cameras with more mirror vibration. Of course, part of it could be the sheer weight of the camera, but the mirror is also quiet-again quieter than a lot of 35mms I've used. The one thing I don't like carrying around is the metered prism. It is handy, but adds right at 2lbs to the weight of the camera(the spec sheet lists 960g, and just some lazy math in my head says that's about right since 1kg=2.2lbs).

 

I can even claim to have hand held 4x5 with my Speed Graphic. Granted these cameras were designed to be used handheld, and some of the most famous journalism photos from the 20th century were taken with a handheld Speed or Crown. They're not TOO heavy, and I find that the standard side belt handhold makes them comfortable even without a neck strap. Granted most of the time I use it on a tripod and focus/compose on the GG. Still, though, you can focus with rangefinder or even scale focus provided that you use the infinity stops and they are in the correct position for the lens(and for the rangefinder if it has the correct cam and is properly calibrated to the lens). The wire-frame finder is close enough for fast moving subjects esp. since you have enough area to crop if need be. The optical finder is actually decent, albeit you have to manually dial in parallax correction and need to have the correct mask for the focal length lens you're using. Still, it can be done-I just don't do it much given the cost of sheet film. I have used my miniature Crown handheld a decent amount, and even used the GG handheld.

[Ed_Ingold]

I started working at a newspaper about the time SLRs were the "latest thing.". I used a Rolleiflex much of the time, hand held, and on one occasion a Speed Graphic. In the news business, a 6" wide print is something special, so camera shake (or grain) is not a big issue. I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams used a tripod for his best work. It's worth the effort.

 

In quantitative terms, everybody has about the same amount of shake in their hands, unless there is a medical condition which makes it worse. That number is about 2 degrees/second. With that in mind, the "speed = 1/focal length) rule is barely adequate. In digital terms, you get less than 6 MP of resolution. If you up that to 3xfocal length, you get the equivalent of about 16 MP. That is independent of the format size. That may be good enough, but it is always better if you use a tripod and good technique.

 

Ordinary MF film (i.e., other than Technical Pan) in an Hasselblad has about the same resolution as a 16 MP back, even when scanned at 4000 dpi (Nikon LS-8000). A 36 to 100 MP back presents more challenges than we had in the "good old days."

 

With an Hasselblad, "good technique" to get pixel-sharpness even at 16 MP means a sturdy tripod, mirror up, lens shutter (focal plane shutter causes shake), careful focusing and a cable release. Mass of a tripod is not so important as stiffness. This includes the mount and head. IMO, Arca-type plates and clamps are the most reliable in that regard. You can hang weight on the tripod, to keep it from blowing over, or for a better footing on soft ground (e.g., grass), but to qualify as mass everything must be rigidly coupled to the tripod. A carbon fiber tripod is stiffer than the next size larger model in aluminum.

[jose_angel]

A tripod will give more consistent results especially with longer lenses, but only if used with mirror lock up and a cable release.

As mentioned in previous posts, the use of a tripod avoid body induced movement to the camera, so the main difference is here, despite of locking the mirror up or not. And, some cameras are better dampened than others.

A cable release also avoid body induced movements, so they are interesting when shooting as steady as possible, but it actually doesn`t make the big difference like shooting hand held vs on a tripod.

Edited May 6, 2017 by jose_angel