I was away for a week and wow, this thread grew by quite a bit.
Marco, David, those are really great shots! Mike, your summary is right on the money but like others already mentioned, the M8 lends itself well for landscape photography as well.
As far as why a RF is easier to handhold, at least to me, because there is no viewfinder black out. If I handhold an SLR, after steadying myself and taking a deep breath, I feel good about it but as soon as the viewfinder is blank, I loose my "confidence" and tend to move the camera somewhat during that period.
Here is a "greasy" shot taken with a 28mm Summicron ASPH at f/2.8 and 1/40 sec in San Antonio, TX.
Pondria wrote:
So, I keep hearing the feedback that it's easier to hand-hold an RF than an SLR. Do you guys actually feel it ? Is it because the Mirror vibration ?
Pondria - I was very surprised how I could get sharp hand-held images from the M8 at shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/25. I kept commenting on it to the guys - it was surreal to me. I don't know what it is - no mirror, weight and grip of the body, how it fits in the hand and rests against your head when shooting, etc. Whatever it is, it works.
The mirror vibration is a myth and the misconception continues to exist with the rangefinder.
Also it has nothing to do with your psychological problem.
Son, so everyone who finds that they can take steady shots at lower shutter speeds with an M is just imagining it? I think you should at least offer a counter-theory if you are going to trash the existing one.
Carsten,
It is very true that you can take the image at slower shutter speeds with the rangefinder camera. Thus, the claim is not a myth but it is actually a doctrine for rangefinder. The myth is how folks go around claiming the mechanism has to do with mirror vibration but the truth is no claimed expert give a clear explanation to the phenomenon. A very simple experiment to disprove this concept is as followed:
1. Tripod function: to prevent hand motions and not mirror vibration
2. Go through the process of elimination by putting your SLR camera on the tripod and take an image at shutter speed 1/15, 1/25 and etc without mirror lock up. The results will show you that the vibration is not the cause for blur image at the 1/25 s; this make sense since at this shutter speeds the vibration should not be the major determining factor for blur image.
3. Therefore, the main culprit for not being able to handheld an SLR camera below 1/60 s has everything to do with hand motion and nothing to do with mirror vibration. Thus, steady hand is the key and when it counts most.
-Son
Edited by Pham Minh Son on Dec 14, 2006 at 12:47 AM GMT
Son, Then, Why do you think almost every SLR has Mirror Lock up ? A long time SLR user, Mike's hands and head suddenly become more steady as soon as he grabs a RF ?
Pondria,
The function of mirror lock up is when you need to do very long exposure, telephoto lens, and scientific works or large prints. Mike's hand is as steady when he handheld a SLR camera as he is with a rangefinder. The problem is that when it counts most that is where folks fail with the SLR system and it is understandable.
If you look at the first link you will see that the lens was like 300 mm focal lenth? As you are well aware that with longer lens you cannot handheld even at 1/60 s but you must increase the shutter speed. More importantly, assumping you can handheld the long heavy lens, the telephoto lens get you very close to the subject and therefore any hand motion or vibration will show more prominently than on the wide angle lens which is the case with most rangefinder shooters as you see reported here. Therefore in the case of the long telephoto lens the element of vibration has a more important role than for wide angle lens. The data showed that even without the mirror lock up with the long telephoto lens, the image is still useable and not in the case where hand motion is the problem. If hand motion is the cause of your blurred image, the image cannot be used.
The second link is taken with the macro and telephoto lens where details are in close up similar to the longer lens. Again, in both senarios you pointed out requires a faster shutter speed or a mirror lock up to attenuate the motion and the vibration for these particular lens function. In addition, even the data without mirror lock up is still not too far behind the mirror lock up at shutter speed 1/15 s. Therefore this continues to prove my theory for the rangefinder camera that the mirror vibration is not the key element to the image sharpness but it has everything to do with steady hand when it counts most. In application for wide angle lens with a rangefinder camera at low light folks benefit with slower shutter speed for sure but the concept must be clarified and when any data on the internet is presented one must be very careful as to the proper control technique that was carried out and whether the information is related to the subject at hand.
Son,
Has anyone denied that hand-holding introduces motions ? That's common sense.
Once you put the camera+lens on the tripod to get rid of the hand-holding vibration, you are still left with mirror vibration. That's why you need MLU. Have you tried any serious Macro photography ? With high magnification, even a subtle vibration can cause blur.
And you have not answered why the same photographer can hold a RF camera more steadily than an SLR
Pondria,
As common sense as it seems, but the concept is not as easily seen when dealing with two different systems. Thus, explains the misconception.
As I pointed to you in the previous post that with long telephoto lens and macro works the details are so magnified thus any motion whether from hand motion or mirror vibration will be magnified and therefore under those circumstances the mirror lock up function is crucial in the workflow. Thus, when Zeiss decided to make large prints they will used mirror lock up, tripod, and their sharpest lens (S-Planar and 1.2/85).
Again, the misconception is that the same photographer can hold a RF camera more steadily than an SLR. As I mentioned before, the photographer has the same steady hand with a SLR as with a rangefinder. When it counts the most that is where the steady hand fail with the SLR.
Edited by Pham Minh Son on Dec 14, 2006 at 01:44 AM GMT
I don't have any strong theories on this, but one possible speculation...
I don't usually handhold wide-angle lenses on my 5D. I'm usually using a tripod with wide-angle lenses (landscapes), or using medium-to-long focal lengths when I'm hand-holding (candid, sports, etc).
So maybe I just never really tried much hand-holding of wide-angles on the 5D. With the the M8, it's all wide-angle stuff (I was mainly using 24, 28, and 35), and maybe if I used those same focal lengths on my 5D, I could actually get a decent shot hand-held at 1/25s. I just never really tried it with the 5D.
Yes, but if the mirror vibration is *magnified* with a telephoto lens or a macro lens, then it is there to begin with. That vibration is not there with a rangefinder. I still have not seen any plausible reason from you why people's hands should shake more with an SLR than with a rangefinder camera. You just keep saying that people's hand are just as steady, but that they fail when it counts the most. What does that really mean?
Michael,
Thanks for pointed out one of the thing I was trying to say, rangefinder shooters often use wide angle lens. If you handheld the 5D with the wide angle lens you will see more acceptable image at smaller prints but not at the larger prints since that will magnify the details more. The rangefinder has the edge over the SLR has nothing to do with the wide angle lens but it happens that most rangefinder shooters use wide angle lens and that in itself is only one of the advantage but it is not the answer as to why rangefinder can be handheld at slower shutter speed. The answer is that it has verything to do with the moment that your steady hand is counted on that is where the SLR camera fails. The mirror vibration should not be the major componenent of this concept.
It is clear that wide-angle lenses are easier to hand-hold than telephoto lenses, but I don't think this is what anyone here is saying.
There is a rule of thumb that to get a sharp picture, you need to use a shutter speed at least as fast as the inverse of the focal length. This takes the focal length into account. With my 5D, I find that I have to go one stop faster than that, to get it really sharp. With the M8, this is not necessary. I use the 50mm Lux Asph, which is actually longer on the M8 than the 50 Summicron on the 5D. I think even in Gunter Osterloh's book it mentions somewhere that one can get sharper handheld pictures *with the same focal length* with a rangefinder than with an SLR.
I will try to do a side-by-side comparison when I get my M8 back (today?).
Carsten,
I have proven the concept that it is not the mirror vibration that causes unuseable image with the SLR system but it has verything to do with the hand motion. Thus, part one, the concept with the mirror vibration is wrong. It is the part two that you want to know and I have explained it already. Using the SLR system, the duration of time when the photographer's hands are required to be steady they are not. Thus, explains why using the SLR system will fails at shutter speed below 1/60 s.
Just to be clear, you have not proven anything. Putting the camera on a tripod changes everything. The transmission of vibration is so different with a tripod you can't even compare. Even from tripod to tripod there are huge differences, even among well-respected brands. LFI had a series of articles on tripods and vibration, FYI.
What you have done is to claim two things: the mirror vibration makes no difference. hand motion does. We agree on the second part. That part is why we can't handhold any camera at any speed, obviously. The first part we disagree on. I can *feel* the mirror slap when I shoot my 5D. The picture surely can too. Try locking up the mirror and shooting by hand. You will feel less vibration. That is pretty good proof that the mirror vibration is significant, I think.
Then you claim that during the time when the photographer's hand are required to be steady, they are not. You don't give an explanation of what might cause this, when it happens, and why it is different from SLR to RF, you just state it like that. If you want anyone (me, at least) to believe you, you need to explain it more. I don't see what you mean at all, nor how you arrived at such an unusual conclusion.
John, the camera doesn't know where the lens is, optically. It could be a retrofocus SLR lens with an adapter or an M lens very close to the plane. The camera and lens are locked together, so the distance should not matter for sharpness, given lenses of equal quality.
Carsten,
If you do not believe in my theory why don't you do a simple test and see how important mirror vibration is at shutter speed 1/15, 1/25 s and etc. Take your camera with one of your wide angle lens and put it on the tripod with mirror lock and take your first image. The second image you should also put it on the tripod and don't do mirror lock up and see if these image are so far apart where one cannot be used and another one is much superior.
Assuming if you can handheld the camera steady when it counts like in the case with the rangefinder do you think that your hand is worse with transmission of vibration than tripod? Is there any data to differentiate hand held versus tripod? Even if the data show that one tripod is better than another tripod do you really think folks screaming when they got themselves one of those cheap tripod? The points of minor improvement with better tripod and mirror lock up do exist but what we are discussing here is the major jump between useable image and non-useable image.
If my unusual claim is at fault then I will let you show them the answer.
-Son
Edited by Pham Minh Son on Dec 14, 2006 at 03:08 AM GMT
Pham Minh Son wrote:
Assuming if you can handheld the camera steady when it counts like in the case with the rangefinder do you think that your hand is worse with transmission of vibration than tripod?
-Son
Pondria wrote:
I cannot help laughing. Son is ..ing around. And it drives Carsten nuts
Son,
Can you give us just short answer in plain English ?
Why do you think a photographer can hand-hold an RF more steadily than an SLR ?
Seems to me that Son is saying and correct me if I'm wrong Son, that
1. the mirror mechanism of SLRs alone cannot explain the difference in observed handholdable shutter speeds with RFs,
2. the reason is NOT that a person is capable of hand-holding a RF any more steadily than an SLR,
3. it might be a timing issue.
Perhaps Son is onto something. Maybe the shorter shutter lag of RFs and the timing of movement assoicated with pressing the shutter has something to do with this.
Then, Why do you think almost every SLR has Mirror Lock up ? A long time SLR user, Mike's hands and head suddenly become more steady as soon as he grabs a RF ? 
