Hand held Vs. Tripod

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>3.5 pixels on what resolution sensor?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I thought it obvious - a CFV-16 had 16 MP resolution. This translates to 4080 x 4080 pixels.</p>

<p><em>And I don't get this 'film is more forgiving' comment</em></p>

<p>Film, particularly color film, exhibits a significant amount of diffusion in the image. This is due to halation and scattering in the emulsion at the time of exposure, and chemical diffusion during processing. It is hard to distinguish low levels of camera shake against this natural diffusion, which has a standard deviation of about 20 microns.</p>

<p>You will notice from MTF charts of film (any Kodak or Fuji data sheet has them), that the contrast is fairly level to about 20 lp/mm, then rolls off at about 6 db/octave. The rolloff for a CFV-16 back starts at about 45 lp/mm, culminating at the Nyquist limit of 57 lp/mm.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Anti-shake technology gives much better results than hand holding at any speed, but not nearly as good as through using a tripod. Using anti-shake AND a tripod is a recipe for disaster - the sensor hunts continuously unless it senses camera motion. This hunting is large enough to disturb the point of aim at longer focal lengths.</p>

[paul_f3]

<blockquote>

<p>"There is an ENORMOUS difference between the results you get handholding and using a tripod, no matter what camera, focal length or shutterspeed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While not to dispute the above statement, <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00QE7l?start=0">this thread</a> might provide an interesting (and, when it was written in 2008, what some might have called a myth-shattering) counter-perspective, in which Mark Bartosik links to multiple examples of using IS with a DSLR to obtain images that would be very difficult, if not impossible to obtain with a tripod:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QE7l</p>

<p> </p>

[david carver]

<p>Edward, I didn't suggest anti-shake with a tripod. Also, I guess the results vs a tripod depend on the shutter speed. The results in my tests show that above at and above 125th the differences do not exist between using anti-shake and a tripod. Plus not using a tripod is so much more fun. In all honesty I usually saw very little diff at 1/60th. According to my tests.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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>;-)

[isaac_hopkins]

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>Back to the original question, the answer is a very strong 'it depends.' I primarily shoot hand held and print 6x9 at 11x14 generally. I've never had the pleasure of people looking at this size print with a microscope. I can say that many people find the handheld shots just as pleasing. Now over the user I've developed several techniques to help stabilize the camera to improve the shot. With that in mind I'll share a few things:</p>

<p>It doesn't matter how sharp the shot is that you didn't get. </p>

<p>You need to know your limits and the limits of your equipment. So use a couple of rolls of film to experiment. </p>

<p>In bright light you should be able to use good technique and get a very sharp image at 1/250th or better 1/125 with a faster film such as provia 400x. if you are swinging the camera around wildly then you might need 1/5ooth in the same situation.</p>

<p>Breathing, timing, stance are very important and can improve things greatly. It isn't much different than rifle shooting in this situation. If you can lay down, steady the camera against the side of a tree or top of a fence that will improve things greatly as you are getting a monopod in that situation. </p>

<p>Kneeling down so that your elbow is on your knee can help as you are getting better stabilization in one dimension that way. </p>

<p>If you know you will be hand holding use a faster film or higher ISO to get a little more shutter speed.</p>

<p>It is considerably harder to do on ultra wide (rotation) and telephoto situations (shake) ideally you would be shooting a very fast normal lens with a faster film. </p>

<p>If you think that shake might be a problem take two or three shots of a subject often times one of the three is very sharp. </p>

<p>With that being said I can only suggest that you try it out. I don't think you would be able to sell the tripod. But you might be surprised.</p>

<p>Oftentimes I've had to make do. (Not lugging around a tripod on a 14 day back country hike.) </p>

<p>You can even improvise and create a fence with a bit of rope strung between two posts or trees. </p>

<p>You can attach rope to where the tripod goes and stand on the rope with your feet. This will steady the camera (as long as it is kept taught).</p>

<p>Finally remember why you take photos in the first place. If it is only to have the sharpest photo around then get the biggest baddest tripod you can afford and never take your camera off of it. If it is for some other reason than bear in mind that a tripod is only a means to an end and oftentimes you can get acceptable shots without it. </p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Although the Blad is certainly very useful outside the studio, I think it really shines INSIDE the studio. I will hand hold my 500CM with up to my 150mm lens outside, but inside, it is on a tripod pretty much exclusively. The 1/ASA minimum shutter speed works well for small format cameras like 35mm, but the mirror on the Blad is considerably larger, so it is not as applicable.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

If it would be the 1/ASA rule, you could handhold at slower speeds when needing slower speeds. That would be nice, wouldn't it?<br> ;-)<br>The 'rule' goes 1/focal length. For what it's worth.<br><br>More important, i think, is this continued belief in that mirror-myth.<br>As i said before, when handholding, the mirror is the very least of your worries. The vibrations it may (!) produce will be (literally) orders of magnitude smaller than the movement of your hands.<br>If you think it worth worrying about the mirror, the thought alone of handholding should scare you into having a massive heart attack.<br>Seriously.

[q.g._de_bakker]

A "P.S." to that:<br><br>Striking/puzzling how people tend to notice that when formats go up, the size and mass of the moving mirror does that too. Yet fail to see that the mass of the camera that moving part is supposed to set in motion does that as well.<br>So at first glance, it's not worse than a smaller 35 mm camera. But who knows: the ratio mirror mass to camera mass may be far more favourable in these bigger MF cameras than it is in 35 mm format cameras.<br><br>So Scott, that 'rule' will perhaps indeed not be applicable. I know a reason or two why not. But for the reason you suggest? How do you know?

[ingemar_lampa1]

<blockquote>

<p>But who knows: the ratio mirror mass to camera mass may be far more favourable in these bigger MF cameras than it is in 35 mm format cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. Small 35mm like the OM series are in my experience more difficult to hand hold than my Hasselblad. I want to use over 1/250 when I use my OM bodies, regardless of lens used - if hand holding that is.</p>

<p>On that note, the OEM "creative photography" manual for the OM recommends using a tripod, but no cable-release. I find that a somewhat strange instuction, or is it inded related to the mirror-slap vs. mass ratio touched on above?</p>

<p>And in order not to hijack the thread: in most cases, I have at least a monopod attached to the Blad. And when not, I make use of "sniper-aids", i.e. fences, trees, etc.</p>

[justinblack]

<p>There is no doubt that if the priority is to make "tripod-sharp" images, a solid camera mount is the solution. That said, there are many, many great photographs that were only possible, or at least were facilitated, by hand holding. In some cases, the image benefits from creative use of camera or subject motion of a sort that a fixed mount would make impossible. In other cases, it is the spontaneity of hand-held shooting that captured the moment. A great moment that wasn't captured at all is probably the worst sort of photograph.<br>

<br /> To the OP, the reality is that there are great photos to be made by handholding a Hasselblad (or any camera) for 1/4, 1, 5, or 100 seconds. It just depends on the type of image you want to make. The important thing is to apply appropriate tools and techniques to serve the image you have in mind, rather than being bogged down by what you are "supposed" to do.</p>

[david carver]

<p>It is obvious, anti-shake lenses have made the tripod obsolete. I didn't know people still used them. Ken Rockwell explains it very well. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

 

<p><em>It is obvious, anti-shake lenses have made the tripod obsolete. I didn't know people still used them. Ken Rockwell explains it very well.</em></p>

 

 

<p>Hopefully you're kidding around with this assertion, considering KR's less than stellar reputation.</p>

<p>Anti-shake technology is not as effective (hand-held) as a tripod at any speed. Even at fairly high shutter speeds (1/60), I can see "worm tracks" in fine details because the VR mechanism continues to track. It is, however, very good compared to hand use alone. I can get acceptible sharpness down to 1/15 with my Nikon 70-200. The hunting effect is much worse if you leave the VR engaged when using a tripod.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Having owned a Hasselblad and also the much larger RB67, I find they tend to lend themselves to particular types of photography. And I also find that a tripod is very important, and quite easily adaptable to my workflow with these types of cameras. <br>

<br />The whole point of a small format camera is to be discrete, flexible, and agile, and to me, a tripod is counter intuitive for this format. When I use SF, image content is more important to me than sharpness, and this also applies when I use some MF cameras such as a Holga. But if image sharpness is that critical that I need a tripod, then it makes little sense to mess about with a 35mm camera.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<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.

[johne37179]

<p>I used a Hasselblad for years (along with 4 x 5 and 35). I found that the design of the Hasselblad (basically a left-handed camera) and the way you nestled it in your palm and looked down into it (I preferred the magnifying hood), I could take handheld pictures at much slower shutter speeds than I could with a 35. One of the advantages of he 2-1/4 format is the larger neg with the flexibility of the small camera. While there are images that you cannot capture without a tripod, I would not give up one of the advantages of the camera unless the situation demands it. <br>

It will take practice and experimentation to determine what the handheld threshold is for any particular lens. With your 60, you should be able to handhold down to about 1/30th of a second. However, you must play it like a fine instrument -- like target shooting at long range -- you control your breathing, you concentrate on when you trip the shutter and do it smoothly -- all the while bracing the camera into your body with your arms tucked in tight.<br>

One of my principle uses of my Hasselblad on assignments was using it in tight spaces where a tripod simply would not fit, but I wanted the larger neg. and could not get it with 35.<br>

I own and regularly use both a monopod and a tripod. Both are essential pieces of any set of photo gear. There are many shots that cannot be achieved without them. On the other hand, there are also many shots that can only be achieved with a handheld camera. Knowing which are which comes with practice and experience.<br>

Enjoy the effort.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Edward:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>And I don't get this 'film is more forgiving' comment</em><br>

Film, particularly color film, exhibits a significant amount of diffusion in the image. This is due to halation and scattering in the emulsion at the time of exposure, and chemical diffusion during processing. It is hard to distinguish low levels of camera shake against this natural diffusion, which has a standard deviation of about 20 microns.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So in fact what you are saying is not that film is 'more forgiving' but that film, due to the diffusion of the image' does not give as sharp an image as digital and masks any camera shake. In other words, film is as good as a digital image that has camera shake.<br>

I am just intrigued because this is an aspect I have never seen in any film-versus-digital debate (and NO,I do not want to start one of those all over again!).</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, you have now.<br><br>While it's true that film shows some diffusion, it's very much less as the diffusion created by the soft focus filters (euphemistically called "antia alias filters") thy use in digital imaging.<br>And it's much less than a digital sensor's resolution. Even when disregarding the Bayer, or other colour pattern filter's reducing effect.<br>In short: it's a non-argument. We do not need to concern ourselves with this.<br><br>What often is mistaken for less resolution is the random nature of grain distribution, compared to the very orderly pixel pattern. The random pattern will match the random detail in typical scenes different from how the ordered pixel pattern matches the random pattern in typical scenes.<br>That should not be mistaken for film being "more foregiving", or having less resolution, and such thingies. In truth, digital sensors are far less foregiving, have less resolution, and create false impressions of quality by ordering everything, even its own shortcomings, into a neatly organized pixel patterns. It sure looks 'clean", and 'neat'. But it's by no means better. On the contrary.

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Y9wK"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 04, 2011; 05:32 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 'rule' goes 1/focal length. For what it's worth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, I should never answer these questions when I am sleep deprived! :-)</p>

 

 

[scott_murphy_photography]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YA1p"></a><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=334723">David C</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://www.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 04, 2011; 11:14 p.m. It is obvious, anti-shake lenses have made the tripod obsolete. I didn't know people still used them. Ken Rockwell explains it very well.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Is it April Fools day already?? Wow winter sure went by fast!<br>

I have to admit, I have heard some pretty silly statements on this site, but that one is definitely in the two three.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>AH !! so many people already told it - its a huge difference !!!</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Every tool, including a tripod, has its use. However, no one tool does all jobs. Handheld cameras were made to be -- well, hand held! Sure, they can be put on a tripod and we all do that from time to time. I also put my car on a ferry, but that doesn't mean it floats or is a boat.</p>

[ty_mickan]

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.

[kim_johnson1]

<p>Besides camera shake... the other BEST reason to use a tripod is for creativity. It frees you and slows you down.<br>

<br /> Great article here.<br /> <a href="http://photonaturalist.net/the-other-reason-to-use-a-tripod/">http://photonaturalist.net/the-other-reason-to-use-a-tripod/</a></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<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.)