Hand held Vs. Tripod

[jose_angel]

... A carbon fiber tripod is stiffer than the next size larger model in aluminum.

Not sure about it... I actually didn`t make a test but I tend to consider my heaviest aluminum ones better for the task than my CF ones. My feel is that CFs are more rigid, but it`s just a feel, and not necessarily better when holding a camera.

In fact, I have CF and aluminum Gitzos (almost all series), and tend to think that aluminum is just better for the task than CF (say, series 3 MK2 aluminum vs. CF), for the mass thing. I cannot check any difference in rigidity between them. And nothing compares to an insanely sized series 5.

It could be true on the smaller series... a three legged CF series 0 could seem more stiff than an aluminum, four legged series 1... but not sure at all. Even so, mass is what makes me feel more sure on the aluminum one.

Needless to say that I use most the CF ones in all series, just because they are lighter, and maybe is that size&weight ratio what makes them preferable.

[Sandy Vongries]

Obviously, there are situations in which tripods are pretty near essential -- long lens nature or sports work, astro, macro, night photos, etc.but a tiny portion of photos are actually taken using tripods. In my travels I rarely see tripods in use except at popular nature reserves. If all of the foregoing was broadly accepted we would constantly be surrounded by tripod wielding photogs. Cat't think of a day on any vacation where I have seen more than one or two tripod users even in tourist hotspots. Frankly, the new camera capabilities are such that many tripod tasks can be accomplished by bracing or resting the camera. I have a couple of tripods and a monopod which I use almost entirely for bird and astro photos. I take one or more on car trips, but otherwise they stay home. I have even stopped carrying my Leica tabletop tripod since I carried it far more than I used it. Everybody has their own way to work -- I prefer unencumbered.

[robert_ante]

Not to get into the debate regarding the use of tripods vs hand held, I believe that Viktor Hasselblad originally designed his camera to be used hand-held, which was the reason for the camera's initial success. Having owned a 1000F many years ago I can defintely say that reliability certainly wasn't a factor of its initial acceptance. It was the design of the body.

However, a Hasselblad using lenses up to 150mm is much more comfortable to use hand held than any of its competition. High quality of its images allowed it to be adopted by studio and fashion photographers using tripods, replacing the Rollei TLR. Of course, depending on the situation, all of the means to stabilize the camera mentioned above, including tripods, should be used when necessary.

[jose_angel]

A hand-held vs. tripod debate is a nonsense. Choices are based on convenience, so each one know what works best for him.

----

I once tested my RZ on tripod (Gitzo CF series 3), in order to know if mirror lock-up and cable release were needed for portraiture (180-250mm), and I try to remember that I was safe without them at usual speeds (say, 1" to 1/400"). My hand held limit was normal, like with other cameras. I know I have the folder anywhere, but as usual, I cannot find it.

FWIW, I did it inspired by Barry Thorton`s published tests; basically, he found that a cheap lightweight tripod was -only- useful at longer speeds, while a good heavier one improved image quality at -all- shutter speeds. Mirror lock-up only showed a noticeable benefit at the fastest speeds. (Obviously it only

Edited May 6, 2017 by jose_angel

[JDMvW]

For many of the older shooters: Depends. ;)

With high ISOs, acceptance of a little noise, fast lenses - a tripod is not always absolutely needed, but those who say tripod will be sharper than hand-held will nearly always be technically, if not practically, right.

 

Since a larger negative is not often enlarged to the same degree, minor tremors have less visibility in prints, than 35mm. The early 120 film cameras often had only one "instant" speed - 1/50 or 1/60 sec.

Morbror (Uncle) Gustav, Aetat 92 years, Kodak Jiffy 620 1/50 sec

Edited May 6, 2017 by JDMvW

[Ed_Ingold]

Since a larger negative is not often enlarged to the same degree, minor tremors have less visibility in prints, than 35mm. The early 120 film cameras often had only one "instant" speed - 1/50 or 1/60 sec.

 

The important parameter is the angle of coverage. Larger formats need longer lenses for the same FOV. That's why I concluded that the effect of camera shake is independent of format.

I once tested my RZ on tripod (Gitzo CF series 3), in order to know if mirror lock-up and cable release were needed for portraiture (180-250mm), and I try to remember that I was safe without them at usual speeds (say, 1" to 1/400"). My hand held limit was normal, like with other cameras. I know I have the folder anywhere, but as usual, I cannot find it.

 

Digital capture is much more demanding than film. If you didn't see a difference, it's because the medium obscured the results. Most of my portraiture has involved the use of studio strobes, which freeze the action (at 1/1000 or faster) better than the shutter. If you call street photos or snapshots "portraits", the subject matter hardly demands critical sharpness. I used a Rolleiflex TLR for newspaper photography, never with a tripod. Routine photos rarely exceeded two columns.(3") at 80 dpi, so camera shake wasn't an issue. I've scanned a lot of old family negatives. While it doesn't matter, considering the content, they are anything but sharp, whether from camera shake or simple lenses. At 42 MP, I would call it "sharp" if I could count threads holding the buttons in the photo above.

[rossb]

I just bought a tripod for the trail and used it today. Its the manfrotto befree and its going to work out well. It fits inside my pack along with camera, gear, food, water etc. I have mirror-up on my MF camera along with shutter release cable

[rossb]

I would add that the subject matter is also important. I want to get the shot and have no problem shooting my Mamiya 645 handheld as long as I have the shutter speed. Later today when my Grand kids come over I am not going to use a tripod. By the time I set that thing up they would be in the kitchen having lunch.

[david_smith35]

Mirror lock-up only showed a noticeable benefit at the fastest speeds.

Mirror lock up will show the greatest benefits at the slowest speeds.

[rick_jack1]

Try a mono-pod if you don't want to lug a tripod around.

It really comes down to the individual. Some people are very steady while others shake all the time.

My MF rule of thumb is for focal lengths over 150mm, use a tripod.

I have hand held my 300mm Nikkor on my Bronica using 1/1000 sec. I was able to blow it up to 24x24", but that is me, I had something to lean on.

[Ed_Ingold]

a monopod is best used to support a heavy camera or lens for long periods of time. While a monopod reduces vertical translation motion, it has very little effect on lateral translation, fore/aft translation, nor yaw. A monopod is better than nothing, but not by much.

 

I've used "shooting sticks" which open into a V shape, which prove to be highly effective for rifle shooting. I'm surprised I haven't seen any with a camera mount, but it wouldn't be hard to jury-rig. A bipod leaves only fore/aft motion, which is insignificant at landscape (or shooting) distances.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

[jose_angel]

Mirror lock up will show the greatest benefits at the slowest speeds.

Have you tested it? Could you show your results?

 

BTW, I said "Mirror lock-up only showed a noticeable benefit at the fastest speeds" into the contest of Barry Thornton`s own testing (for those who doesn`t know, Barry Thornton was a well know photographer and printer, specially concerned in the make of extremely sharp images).

To be more specific, yes, the use of mirror lock-up show a benefit at all shutter speeds, although very small at slower speeds, that becomes clearly noticeable at the fastest shutter speeds (1/60, 1/125 in Thornton`s tests).

Edited May 10, 2017 by jose_angel

[jose_angel]

Just to add that I assume different setups could yield different results. As mentioned, my own testing with the RZ show me a quite friendly camera, which I can use mirror down (on tripod) for my typical applications (b&w studio close portraits, either available or strobe lightning, with 180&250mm lenses).

[rossb]

I am going to Pinnacles National Park today and shoot a few frames and plan to use my hiking tripod but i will shoot 1 frame at 1/60th also and check it out later to see if it works out. I will be shooting with an 80mm lens. I have only had the camera a few weeks and still learning what i can do with it. I have shot a lot of pictures of the grandkids at various shutter speeds of 1/60 and faster/handheld and have not seen a problem. Today i want to shoot scenics at f22 with b/w contrast filters and expect to use some slow shutter speeds. I will post tomorrow after i develop and scan and check it out on the negative and monitor.

[david_smith35]

Mirror lock up will obviously show the greatest benefit at slower shutter speeds - it's just common sense - you don't need to provide test results to realise that.

[jose_angel]

Well, tests have proven it to be not that obvious... :)

[rossb]

I made my trip and hiked around for over 5 hrs. Climed a couple thousand feet and did fine with my medium format, tripod and plenty of water. I never encountered a shot at 1/60th of a second shutter speed and used my tripod for everything. Average shutter speed was 1/8th second. But i have shot quit a few pictures of the grandkids at 1/60th second handheld with no problems. I havd only had the camera a couple weeks and have not encountered any problems really. I was a bit worried about the weight in the field but i put that to rest today as i can carry it fine.

[donbright]

Tripods are essential. Live with it. Even quick shutter speeds aren't impervious to slight movement. There are cases when fast shutter speeds will do the trick but at risk. Murphy's law will prove that out. Been there done that. Use the tripod!

[Sandy Vongries]

It isn't binary! Use them when you need them. If that is always, let it be. If it is almost never, or even never and your results satisfy you, it is all good. Got to tell you, I see a far greater numbers of photos taken without tripods than with. The fallacy of two extremes.

[andyfalsetta]

I am about three rolls of film into a new-to-me MF and have used a tripod as often as possible; probably 90% of the time across these rolls. If I keep using it I will never get any better at those opportunities where hand holding would work so at some point I need to "shed the training wheels" and see if I am capable of hand holding.

 

Thinking about the mirror up discussion, (and that most of you guys know more about photography than I would ever hope to know) I have a relatively simple unqualified opinion on what happens with mirror vibration. Please straighten me out if I am wrong or have overlooked something important.

 

I am presuming the benefit of shooting with the mirror up is to eliminate any vibration caused when the mirror slams into its stop prior to the shutter firing. If that is the case, I could see how shorter (faster) shutter speeds could benefit more from a locked mirror than longer (slower) speeds. Once the mirror hits its stop, the strongest vibrations begin and then trail off. (Those out there who are Engineers might clarify for me whether or not there is a resonance to the vibration that makes it stronger in the middle of its vibration period but for me I am going to presume its linear.) Considering the vibration is its strongest directly after the mirror hits its stop, then a shutter speed that occurs immediately following the mirror slam and that is capturing the entire image over this short period of time would be open and capturing the image only during the strongest vibration period. Depending on the individual camera, the strength and duration of the vibration will diminish at some point to where its imperceptible. Considering again that the vibration is strongest directly after the mirror hits its stop, the same image being captured over a longer period of time (slower shutter speed) would be capturing a portion of the image during the strong vibration period but would capture the remaining light as the vibration is diminishing or has diminished completely. Does this theory hold water?

[Ed_Ingold]

Mirror vibration has the greater effect between 1 and 1/15 second, because the duration is a large fraction of the exposure time. However even a short exposure doesn't remove the effect completely. A normal lens at 1/125 second reduces the effect to a low level, but I still see doubling of high contrast edges if I look closely. It is so easy to pre-release the mirror that I do it as a matter of routine for landscapes. Mirror lockup is hard to undo with Hasselblad 500 and 501 cameras, but easy with my Hasselblad 205 and 555ELD, and I believe the 503CW.

 

Vibrations usually decay logarithmically (first order decay). The frequency would be the resonant frequency or odd harmonics, since the impulse is momentary at the top of the apex. The further the camera is from the apex of the legs, the greater the effect. Keep the "stack" as short as possible, and avoid using an extended column.

 

A tripod must be very stiff, with good damping. Damping can be visualized by mounting a long lens and looking through the finder when you tap one of the legs lightly. There also must be no lost motion between the camera and legs, including how the camera is mounted on the head. Finally, the tripod must be on a firm surface. On grass, you should press the legs into the earth, or use spikes. I use a Gitzo #3 CF tripod with a leveling head, and an Area B1 or RRS BH-55 ball head with Arca-type plate and clamp QR.

 

Wood tripods have excellent stiffness damping, but tend to be long (2 section) when folded, short when extended, and heavy. I'd rather carry a lighter tripod each time I go out than have a massive tripod that gets left behind. I have a Gitzo #5 "Giant", which weighs about 18 pounds with a large video head. That goes from car to cart with a minimum of schlepping.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

[ben_hutcherson]

When I bought my view camera, the shop sold me some monstrosity of a tripod that the owner said was "overkill for 4x5 but will get you to 8x10". It's old American made aluminum and is about 4 feet long folded. It probably also weighs 20lbs. I'm 6'2" and am stretching to see the ground glass if I extend the legs fully.

 

 

Fortunately, for MF it's just about right for a WLF without extending the legs. I don't like raising the center column on any tripod, but this one is still okay even with an RB67.

 

 

I have to admit that even with a 4x5 field camera, that tripod stays in the car and my Tiltall goes with me. I get very sharp results with 6x6 on the Tiltall and the mirror dampening is good enough on the RB67 that I don't worry about it even though I'm probably pushing the weight limits. I can also do okay with the Speed Graphic on it. A wooden field camera is actually okay with it even though it doesn't dampen vibrations as well as I like.

[kenkuzenski]

I've used "shooting sticks" which open into a V shape, which prove to be highly effective for rifle shooting. I'm surprised I haven't seen any with a camera mount, but it wouldn't be hard to jury-rig. A bipod leaves only fore/aft motion, which is insignificant at landscape (or shooting) distances.

 

I've got a Sunpak "Versapod." The bottom foot of the monopod opens into three legs in a triangle arrangement, about 8" apart from each other. And you can tilt it to use just two of the feet. Seems to work very well. I think I got it from B&H.

[andyfalsetta]

Have you tested it? Could you show your results?

 

BTW, I said "Mirror lock-up only showed a noticeable benefit at the fastest speeds" into the contest of Barry Thornton`s own testing (for those who doesn`t know, Barry Thornton was a well know photographer and printer, specially concerned in the make of extremely sharp images).

To be more specific, yes, the use of mirror lock-up show a benefit at all shutter speeds, although very small at slower speeds, that becomes clearly noticeable at the fastest shutter speeds (1/60, 1/125 in Thornton`s tests).

 

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.

[Ed_Ingold]

I've got a Sunpak "Versapod." The bottom foot of the monopod opens into three legs in a triangle arrangement, about 8" apart from each other. And you can tilt it to use just two of the feet. Seems to work very well. I think I got it from B&H.

I have a Bogen monopod which has extendable legs similar to your description - totally ineffective. The long stem of the monopod acts like a lever on the narrow base. A bipod (shooting stick) would hold the camera at the apex of the unfolded legs, preventing lateral and vertical translation, and yaw in any direction. Only fore/aft translation would be unrestrained.

 

My educated guess is that the damping time is about 1/4 second. A lot would depend on the particular tripod and aluminum v carbon. It could be easily measured with an accelerometer (3) kit and a recording oscilloscope. A home brew might use a laser fastened to the camera while shooting the projected beam on the wall with a video camera. It might be easier to tape a small mirror to the camera to reflect a fixed laser while the shutter is fired. A still shot of the laser spot, with a separate camera, would give an overview of the maximum displacement. A little trigonometry could translate that into an angular measurement. (An image from the camera under test should be a single spot, because the beam and camera should be in sync.) Even without the math, this experiment would give a good, qualitative review of the vibration.