Liveview for handheld stills

[george_doumani]

<p>I have met a few photographers recently who are using the Liveview function consistently for handheld still captures. They have told me that it works only, of course, on relatively static subjects but the accuracy of focus surpasses anything they can achieve through the OVF. They are using the 10x maginification button to assist with critical focus.</p>

<p>I myself shoot with a Canon 5D mkII and I have used Liveview with mirror lock enabled and a tripod for many years with great success. I was experimenting the other day using it as a method of handheld photography. I do not really feel confortable with the extra button pressing required to magnify the LCD screen and I feel that handholding the camera out in front of ones face could not be anywhere as close to holding a camera stable compared with the classic up to your eye stance. With the mirror lock enabled though I have been able to get some reasonable results with handheld.</p>

<p>I was wondering what your experiences have been with this handheld method?</p>

<p>Are any of you using the z-finder system to achieve extra stability (up to your eye) but also the accuracy the magnified Liveview can offer?</p>

<p>Are you always using Liveview with the mirror lock enabled or any other custom setting that may assist in the process?</p>

<p>I refer to this focusing method of course only in manual focus mode.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

Mirror lock isn't relevant in live view since the mirror is up in live view anyway. I have used live view for manual shooting,

but only in a few very unusual situations. If you are hand holding the camera, I cannot believe that you'll achieve greater

focus accuracy than if you rely on WF.

 

Dan

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks for your reply Dan,</p>

<p>yes, the mirror does go up in order for the camera to be in Liveview mode but when you realease the shutter whilst in Liveview mode the mirror closes first to enable the shutter to release. This extra "clunk" is avoided when the mirror lock is enabled. I suggest you have a try if you are using an EOS body.</p>

<p>As far as focusing accuracy. I am canon 35mm L and a Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm ZE. Focusing accuracy is far superior in this mode IMO. I also have the EG-S matt screen fitted but when I can I use Liveview. </p>

[lester_wareham]

I must say using LV for handheld shots seems to defeat the purpose of SLR.

 

I would think small movements back and forth would defeat the focus accuracy anyway. Also just general holding position

would not be good for low camera shake.

 

Perhaps if using fast manual focus lenses this might be an improvement, modern DSLRs focus screens are not the best

for this.

 

I too have only used LV on tripod shots, normally macro. I have thought about using it with a telel and a 2X where the

system can now longer AF, but this would need at least a monopod and a fairly static subject.

[lester_wareham]

I must say using LV for handheld shots seems to defeat the purpose of SLR.

 

I would think small movements back and forth would defeat the focus accuracy anyway. Also just general holding position

would not be good for low camera shake.

 

Perhaps if using fast manual focus lenses this might be an improvement, modern DSLRs focus screens are not the best

for this.

 

I too have only used LV on tripod shots, normally macro. I have thought about using it with a telel and a 2X where the

system can now longer AF, but this would need at least a monopod and a fairly static subject.

[lester_wareham]

I must say using LV for handheld shots seems to defeat the purpose of SLR.

 

I would think small movements back and forth would defeat the focus accuracy anyway. Also just general holding position

would not be good for low camera shake.

 

Perhaps if using fast manual focus lenses this might be an improvement, modern DSLRs focus screens are not the best

for this.

 

I too have only used LV on tripod shots, normally macro. I have thought about using it with a telel and a 2X where the

system can now longer AF, but this would need at least a monopod and a fairly static subject.

[lester_wareham]

Gahh, multiple posts for some reason, sorry folks.

[david_henderson]

<p>Best of luck in holding the camera steady enough to focus accurately at 10x magnification essentially with one hand whilst the other twiddles the focus ring. Like you I make extensive use of LiveView, but almost always on a tripod where I can keep the camera steady as I focus and ensure that the subject to camera distance is the same for focussing and taking. </p>

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks David and Lester,</p>

<p>I fundamentally agree with you that Liveview handheld seems a little crazy. I was shocked when the photographer I questioned told me ALL of his work was through Liveview and handheld with 10x magnification for focus although all of his work is static or semi-static scenes. When I questioned him about his workflow that was basically it.</p>

<p>I was just trying to find anyone else out there who has had the same experience or knows of anyone who shoots in this manner for stills as the work I saw from this guy was extremely outstanding in terms of IQ.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Although I have seen people holding a DSLR at arms length and obviously using it in Live View, I just thought "Oh well, to each his own" sigh, . . .</p>

<p>I use Live View often but from a tripod with a shutter release, and sometimes I have used Live View from my car window with the camera stabilized on a sand bag thinking I was accomplishing the same as Mirror Lock up by using Live View. Now, . . . with George's comment . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"yes, the mirror does go up in order for the camera to be in Liveview mode but when you realease the shutter whilst in Liveview mode the mirror closes first to enable the shutter to release. This extra "clunk" is avoided when the mirror lock is enabled."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to steal the OP's thread but can someone confirm or explain this a bit better. Appears that using Live View instead of MLU is a futile effort.<br>

I've not tried both, (and not certain it's possible yet) but maybe I should as George suggests.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I've found when doing candids of children that the subject will often put on a pasty smile/grin whenever the camera is raised to the eye. Liveview is a great way to take shots while it looks like I'm just fiddling with my camera at chest level. I'm not sure I'd use it for portraiture in any other situation, but it's really useful (indeed indespensable) in that situation.</p>

[brad_trostad]

Live view is a useful feature. Not practical for all types of situations though. That being said, what I like is that I can have my eye

away from the camera and see the entire scene much like a movie camera operator would on a external monitor. Along with that is

the ability to compose the scene first (ideally on a tripod) and then set critical focus anywhere in the frame without having to move the

camera again. But all of this typically requires very static situations.

 

 

If a person where to try and exclusively use live view they would really benefit from a z-finder accessory which will let you see the

screen even when it's bright outside. And this will let you hold it pressed against your eye so more stable. I would also put magic

lantern on the camera. They have many features that would help when using live view such as smaller histogram, split focus overlay,

cropping marks, etc.

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"As far as focusing accuracy. I am canon 35mm L and a Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm ZE. Focusing accuracy is far superior in this mode IMO. I also have the EG-S matt screen fitted but when I can I use Liveview"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Focusing accuracy, indeed. <em>can </em>be better in live view - which I why I essentially always work in live view for the majority of my photography, <em>which is done from the tripod</em>. There is a whole lot more to live view shooting than that, too - I have written a short article about some of the benefits that are not as well-known: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/07/06/why-i-like-live-view-on-my-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii">Why I like DLSR Live View Shooting</a><br /> <br /> However, while shooting in live view makes sense for reasons including the ability to eliminate an additional source of vibration and fine tune manual focus... both of those options are essentially negated when you hand hold the camera, as I understand you to be doing in your shooting. While you can MF with extreme accuracy when the subject-to-camera distance is held constant by putting the camera on a tripod and fixing the position of the subject, that goes out the window when you hold the camera and the subject can also move. Here, in fact, AF will provide a <em>more accurate result</em> than live view - and speaking as a real live view <em>aficionado</em>, I would choose to use AF in almost all such situations <em>because my results will be better.</em><br /> <br /> There is an exception if you and the subject can be stationary, and you are willing to <em>give up a bit of sharpness</em> in order to use live view. I'm currently working on a project to photograph classical orchestral musicians. They are often very sensitive to distractions, and especially to audio distractions - so the mirror slap of a DSLR is often not acceptable. Sometimes in this situation, when I can't cover the camera sound by shooting at loud points in the music or by being in a location where my camera won't be heard, I do work in live view. My process is typically to be in a fixed position - perhaps sitting in a seat in the house during a rehearsal - and to select a particular on-stage subject. I then do MF in live view - mainly because the AF alternatives in live view aren't good in this scenario - and I use mode 2, with the first and second electronic shutter. Even here, when the camera to subject distance remains relatively fixed, I eschew the largest apertures since they increase the risk of image softness, especially since I sometimes am using relatively long lenses when shooting this way. Overall, this approach does, indeed, reduce the sound a bit - and in situations in which my alternative would be losing permission to shoot at all... this is a decent compromise. But it certainly would produce better photographic results - at least in the technical sense - to use AF.</p>

<p>There are a few other situations in which live view could be useful for hand held shooting, though not for the reasons you cite. These other circumstances include situations where you cannot put your eye to the viewfinder - shooting around obstructions or working very close to the ground or shooting with the camera held overhead. There are also some situations, as Sarah already mentioned, when you can change your relationship to your subject by using the live view display rather than the viewfinder - shooting close up in crowds, shooting while talking to your subject, etc - but, again, the advantage here has nothing to do with creating sharper images. In fact, it is more often a case of being willing to accept a potential <em>slight loss in sharpness in order to gain other non-sharpness advantages</em> that might suggest this approach when working handheld.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>With G. Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are hand holding the camera, I cannot believe that you'll achieve greater focus accuracy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can only imagine doing this if you've</p>

<ul>

<li>started on P&S cameras, and</li>

<li>have never learned how to use the AF <em>and</em> manual focus to best advantage</li>

</ul>

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks to you all for the input.... particularly to Dan for his lengthy reply.</p>

<p>In principal I agree with you regarding handheld live view being a sacrifice in terms of image sharpness but I would like you to see the flickr stream of the following photographer. All the work you see on his profile, according to him, is shot via live view, handheld, critical focus x10 magnifier. Very minimal PP in Lightroom 2. I see absolutely no loss of sharpness in these frames.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edjames/</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The thing is that nearly all his shots are very static- so he could have used a tripod without a problem and I'd argue gains absolutely nothing from not doing so. Its also hard to tell how sharp something is as a relatively small image on a screen. Seeing a large print can be very different. This is a problem I see myself when I send off a submission to a stock agency of 1200 x 800 pixel images all apparently sharp. They'll select some and then I'll sometimes get the insurmountable problem of making a sharp 50MB file.</p>

[beautox]

<blockquote>

<p>"yes, the mirror does go up in order for the camera to be in Liveview mode but when you realease the shutter whilst in Liveview mode the mirror closes first to enable the shutter to release. This extra "clunk" is avoided when the mirror lock is enabled."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I think you might mean "the shutter closes" not "the mirror closes" - the mirror goes up and down - it does not close.<br /> However, this depends on what camera you have. Newer cameras like the 7D, etc have electronic first curtain, so when in live view and you take a picture, the shutter does NOT close first - it uses the electronic first curtain to start the exposure, and the shutter closes to finish the exposure.<br /> Older cameras do close the shutter first. So check how your camera works..</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I regard to the point in the previous post, in live view mode 1, the mirror does indeed go back down after the shot, though this has no effect at all on the stability of the camera while the shutter is open, so there is no image quality disadvantage here. </p>

<p>If you are using live mode so that you can make camera operation a bit quieter, choose mode 2 in live view and then the mirror is already up before the exposure (as it is in mode 1) but it remains up after the shot.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>...? on my 5s, mode1 and mode2 and disabled seem to make no difference. In none of those modes does the mirror descend prior or after the shot. I've confirmed this by shooting w/o a lens on, so I can see (as well as feel) that the mirror is not descending...ever.<br>

I wonder why this is since others seem to have different experiences?</p>