Hand held Vs. Tripod

[jose_angel]

Is there any possibility someone has access to Barry Thornton's testing results and can point us to them? Knowing the duration of the average mirror slap vibration would be important to know, as well as what he found in his tests.

They are published in "Edge of Darkness" (The art, craft and power of the high-definition monochrome prints). Page 65 in my american edition.

Basically, he taped a pen cell torch leaving a small hole to have a diminute white spot to be photographed in total darkness, TMX on DiXactol, using a Pentax LX (50/1.7) at a distance of 30". He printed the spots in b&w paper at 10x. The image looks like a white star shaped spot over a full black darkground. The sharpest and smallest the star, the better result.

He obviously expected a benefit at the slower speeds, but found the main difference at the fastest. At 1 and 1/2 seconds, the difference between mirror down and up was almost negligible. From say, 1/4 to 1/30 seconds, there was a difference, but very small in comparison to the shots at 1/60 and 1/125 seconds, which were clearly noticeable. He says he doesn`t have a reason for this, but found it to be real.

Edited May 15, 2017 by jose_angel

[jose_angel]

I try to remember that Thornton doesn`t mention any measurement (duration). Markins (the tripod head maker) have some online published tests in this respect.

FWIW, I still don`t found the file with my own tests tests, but I have some images I think I posted here in pnet time ago. These images were taken with my RZ, cannot remember which lens (very likely a 180 normal, but it could be a 110, not sure). My aim was to know if I could avoid the pain of using the mirror lock-up feature (cable release on the lens included) and to directly use the shutter release button on the camera instead, activated with my finger (mirror down). I use this camera for portraiture and prefer to work this way to make the shoot as fast as possible.

Here they are:

[jose_angel]

For whatever the reason, the system doesn`t leave me to upload another image (40Kb jpegs, 400x300). -Great-.

[jose_angel]

Another try,

No sucess. Maybe the following one...

No sucess. The system doesn`t like my images. Only the first one.

FWIW, I found that there was a little difference between both methods, with a very slightly better sharpness (some times almost negligible) up to 1/60"... not sure at faster speeds because I cannot find more images!

Edited May 15, 2017 by jose_angel

[jose_angel]

One more try with a different one...he following error occurred

The following error occurred

There was a problem uploading your file.

--

Ok, I give up.

[Ed_Ingold]

It is simply not plausible that the camera hand-held at 1/4 second has less motion than on a tripod, MLU. Besides mislabeling the results, two factors would contribute the the uncertainty, and mask differences - diffraction and over-exposure. Perhaps there is a third - limitations of the scanning process.

[donbright]

These vibration issues regarding a tripod are interesting. I have a few tripods. One is a carbon fiber tripod that was a gift that is light medium in size and easy to use and I used it regularly with small camera's. When I made the digital move I noticed that some images were soft but inconsistently. So then I did an experiment on the hard tile floor between my retired Gitzo metal tripod and the gifted carbon. With camera mounted between the two tripods and initiating shock into the head with camera, a thump with my finger, I noticed a very obvious shake or vibration with the carbon tripod and absolutely no reaction, or vibration with the metal Gitzo. Live and learn! I'm not saying this a universal solution carbon verses metal tripods, surely there a carbon tripods sophisticated enough to overcome shake, but I'm just submitting my experience that had I known the result earlier on I could have saved a lot of images. Edited May 16, 2017 by donbright

[jose_angel]

It is simply not plausible that the camera hand-held at 1/4 second has less motion than on a tripod, MLU. Besides mislabeling the results, two factors would contribute the the uncertainty, and mask differences - diffraction and over-exposure. Perhaps there is a third - limitations of the scanning process.

Edward, I think it was mentioned in a previous post, both shots were taken wit the camera on a tripod (I rarely shoot other than smallest formats w/o them). My intention was to check if the image quality shooting by "finger" (-camera on tripod-, releasing the shutter on the camera`s by pressing the button directly with my finger) was good enough to avoid the "right", usual, "two step" procedure (-camera on tripod-, locking up the mirror and releasing the shutter on the lens with a two step cable).

Don`t get confused by the size of the "spot", just look at the sharpness... my "spot" actually is a tiny LED, I think that maybe it has some kind of flickering.

Sadly, the system doesn`t let me to upload more images (?), which I think is a must to understand and evaluate the whole test.

 

Yes, I understand everything counts about sharpness. Not only the tripod, but the camera, lens, construction quality (camera, lens, tripod), tripod head, plates, clamps, floor, dolly, etc. etc. etc. We use to read about tripod a or b type, but basics aside, I think each system need to be tested on the whole to know how it works.

 

I`m so lucky I only have good tripods, from the lightest CF ones to the (very likely) heaviest and more solid one ever made by Gitzo (I use to avoid center columns). As mentioned in a previous post, I don`t believe in the "magic" of CF ones, I`m more fond of the heavier aluminum versions, although I use to take CFs for convenience. BTW, the aforementioned test was probably done on a series 3 CF, which I consider (based on my tests) suitable for a RZ camera with lenses up to 250mm.

Edited May 16, 2017 by jose_angel

[andyfalsetta]

Thanks Jose. This is interesting. I also will look for the information contained in "Edge of Darkness".

[jose_angel]

 

Well, today the system let me to post the pic I tried yesterday... maybe it`s one post per day and user... (?!?!)

[jose_angel]

[jose_angel]

I`m on a roll! Next one!

 

[jose_angel]

[jose_angel]

Somewhat hard to post, I need to refresh the page every time. Looks like Pnet doesn`t like my computer anymore, or whatever. I`m so sorry.

I should have written "finger triggered with the mirror in down position" instead of "hand" (I see it`s confusing). These are the spot at left. The spots at right were shot mirror locked-up and triggered via cable release. Both shots were taken with the camera on tripod.

Edited May 16, 2017 by jose_angel

[david_smith35]

Mirror induced vibrations are not a worry when handholding. It will be orders of magnitude smaller than hand induced shake.<br><br>And yes, even with short focal length lenses and fast shutter speeds, the difference a tripod makes is ENORMOUS.

 

<p>There is not an ENORMOUS difference between handholding at 1/500th and a tripod with an 80mm/60/40mm lens - some difference perhaps but not a lot. But below 1/250th there is a noticeable difference.</p>

I agree with your sensible comment.

[david_smith35]

<i>"The 'rule' goes 1/focal length. For what it's worth. This general advice applies to SLR's. With cameras like rangefinders, slower speeds are possible."</i><br><br>No, Ty.<br>The rule is the same for any and all cameras.<br>It is based upon an estimate of acceptable blur, reduced to/measured in angular movement. The amount of blur per unit of movement grows with magnification, i.e. with focal length. Thus to keep it low you must further restrict the movement (i.e. use faster speeds) when focal lengths grow.<br>There is absolutely nothing about types of cameras assumed or hidden inside the 'rule'.<br><br>And rightly so.<br>As mentioned before, i think ;-), the idea that cameras with mirrors would be less easy to handhold is completely unfounded and ill-conceived.<br>Not to put too fine a point on it: it's completely bonkers. ;-)<br>(It really is.)

Not true. A camera without a mirror and rear shutter is generally easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

Edited May 29, 2017 by david_smith|35

[rossb]

I shot a roll of 120 format Arista 400 handheld yesterday in the backyard. The Grandkids were over and i metered off a grey card and shot the roll at those settings. Shutter speed was 1/250th and the photos are great. Exposure right on, sharp pictures. However on the 9th i will be at Yosemite and am planning to shoot a roll of velvia 50 and i will want max DOF and will use my tripod for all 15 shots. If i used a tripod on the grandkids i would not have any shots since they are running around and at yosemite i will be shooting with long shutter speeds and will need to keep the camera stabilized. I just have a BeeFree tripod and will shoot mirror up. I was thinking of shooting on the Mist trail. Edited May 31, 2017 by rossb

[Ed_Ingold]

The effect of camera shake when hand-held is at least twenty times that imparted by the mirror or shutter.

 

In the experiments posted above the effect of flare, overexposure and diffraction are much greater than any differences in the manner of triggering the camera, or the effects of mirror and shutter vibration. You need a light source which projects on the film plane one pixel wide or so. Even that may be limited by diffraction and various aberrations in the lens. The best point source of light will be an optical collimator. In nature, the most consistent source is the image of a star. Even in a 10 second exposure, you can easily see the disturbance imparted by operating the shutter release by hand.

 

I wish I had time for a better demonstration, but the end of the academic year keeps me tied to finishing many paying projects. I have something in mind, but only later.

[jose_angel]

Not true. A camera without a mirror and rear shutter is generally easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds.

David, can you give some reasons to support your affirmation? Have you tested it? Proofs? Experiences?

Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers. Evidences are really useful these days.

Edited June 4, 2017 by jose_angel

[rick_jack1]

Agree with David.

Steadiness depends on many factors, some people are steadier and have better balance. Natural conditions such as wind or standing on uneven ground. Common sense comes into play here as does how you intend to display the final image. For landscape shots a tripod can't freeze moving subjects such as leaves or water. I have gotten wonderful results (printed to 16x20) using my 300mm at 1/1000 handholding while leaning on a fence. I have also messed up shots with my 80mm because I moved.

The question is what kind of photographer are you? Do you mind lugging a heavy tripod around? Light weight and medium duty tripods don't cut it with a MF with a long/heavy lens. I like to travel light and usually don't take any MF lenses along longer than 180mm, instead take my DSLR when shooting objects at a distance but still need a tripod for my 600mm.

Examine your images...only you will know your limits. Consider a mono-pod, they are light and will help, and also make a good weapon.

[Sandy Vongries]

Got to say, though I consciously avoid photographer mob scenes, I don't think I've seen three tripods in travels to popular destinations in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and also wandering around scenic Montana over the last half dozen years. More conspicuous by their absence than real cameras. If they are essential to good photos a lot of folks are missing out!

[Ed_Ingold]

I saw a lot of tripods in use in Iceland this spring, probably because it is a good destination for serious landscape photography. I saw a lot of selfie-sticks too. Different strokes for different folks.

[Sandy Vongries]

I think selfie sticks are the funniest fad I've seen in decades!

[david_smith35]

David, can you give some reasons to support your affirmation? Have you tested it? Proofs? Experiences?

Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers. Evidences are really useful these days.

My own experiences are enough to make me say my statement is correct - I certainly don't need to try and prove it to win an argument. "Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers" I have no idea what that statement means - it's sounds like gibberish to me

[jose_angel]

Ok, so I understand you get a steadier hand held shot with a leaf shutter camera than with a rear one... looks like your cameras "recoil" too much...

I see. We have to trust all your statements, even if they are against rationality. Otherwise, we are wrong.

Edited June 15, 2017 by jose_angel