I'm extremely skeptical just how many handheld MF shots are truly sharp in the sense of being able to withstand any serious degree of enlargement.
No, we are comparing it with the results we obtain hand-holding other cameras.Thank you for saying that. I've been watching this thread in disbelief, as if my original question made no sense. Resolution is one of the major reasons to shoot medium format and I suspect a lot of peeps here are throwing it out the window.
Thank you for saying that. I've been watching this thread in disbelief, as if my original question made no sense. Resolution is one of the major reasons to shoot medium format and I suspect a lot of peeps here are throwing it out the window.
Very well said.One needs to first remember that :
the 135 format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed is actually based upon
the Medium format format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed.
There was a failure to modify the basic rule equation by the relative smaller format size of 135 vs. medium format (a practice that was put into play for FF digital vs. APS-C digital...the speed was multipled by 0.6x in that case.) There was no multiplier used in going from MF formiula to 135 formula...it should have been factored by about 0.55x that time, too!
So if you consider the 'normal FL' for each format 1/50 is supposed just as steady as 1/75 on MF, but it in fact is NOT!...since the 135 format is magnified on print by 1.8X or greater to achieve the final print, any visible shake is magnified as well. Ergo the need for the faster shutter speed for 135 to be 'the same' as MF.
So any inherent 'increased difficulty' in hand holding MF is neutralized in the overly optimistic hand holding speed of 135, when the format-to-format comparison is done.
I tried a few MF cameras. I ened up and kept the following: The Mamiya 6 for travel photography because, it's very portable and the lenses are ou of this world sharp. For studio and landscape photography, I find theHasselblad V system unbeatable. The camera body feels like an extension of hand and arm, the lenses are top and it is heavy enough to shoot it without camera shake down to a 1/60s. otherwise.a good monopod does wonders.Wanted to explore an interesting (for me) topic: which MF cameras are the best for shooting without a tripod?
Some background:
My first medium format camera was Fuji GF670. I was agonizing over this choice. It was **expensive** but I felt that portability was the most important thing for me. And yes, indeed, this camera is more portable than any of my old digital SLR gear. I was hoping to stick to "one camera one lens" here, but I quickly discovered that I need a LOT of light to shoot with it. For whatever reason, I just can't hold it steady enough for anything under 1/250 to be blur-free. It's the combination of being lightweight and awkward to hold due to the bellows...
My second MF purchase surprised me. I wanted to get a medium-format SLR and I was researching Hasselblad V-system at the time. Plenty of people complained about difficulties of getting sharp photos with a Hassy without a tripod, citing mirror/curtain movements, so I decided to settle on the 645 format instead, hoping for less mirror shake. I ended up getting a Mamiya 645 Pro, which was a pleasant surprise: it's quite steady and on par with my 35mm cameras, i.e. 1/focal-length rule works well on it.
My 3rd camera was the exact opposite of the Fuji. If the GF670 was light, expensive and "jerky", the Mamiya C330 is cheap, heavy and steady. I am regularly dropping the shutter speed to 1/60 at the same focal length as the Fuji. And, despite being the bulkiest & heaviest, it is (surprise!) actually the most handholdable camera I have!
In the end, quite ironically, the most lightweight camera in my collection ended up needing a tripod the most, and the heaviest camera is actually most useful in low light situations!
How do my experiences map to yours?
That is one purpose, but not the only one. As an example, I much prefer using some of my medium format equipment when I take informal portraits - resolution isn't really a priority there.@wiltw right, but the purpose of a MF camera is not to match 135 resolution but to exceed it and print bigger.
This is not something I have thought very hard about, just loose conjecture, but perhaps the Barnack formats popularity and seemingly ideal size has to do with it very approximately matching the human retina in square centimeter size.
@wiltw right, but the purpose of a MF camera is not to match 135 resolution but to exceed it and print bigger. There's no point in having an equivalence here, that's what I meant by saying "throwing out the window".
Why lug around a heavy camera with 10 frames on a roll to end up with the same effective resolution as a poketable Leica due to shake blur? This makes such MF camera not handholdable, regardless how much it weights.
In my case, judging each format by its potential, I find that Fuji GF670, despite being lightweight, is fa-a-a-a-a-ar behind my M6 in handholdability department, but C330s is very close, despite being a brick.
technically perfect photographs are sometimes boring.
I'm extremely skeptical just how many handheld MF shots are truly sharp in the sense of being able to withstand any serious degree of enlargement. My Fuji 6x9 RF's with 90mm lens hand-holds even better than my Nikon; but anything below 1/125th, say 1/60th, is only about a 50% success rate. If I were younger, I might get away with one speed slower. With my P67, the 105 lens is the longest I can work with handheld, and need 1/250 or preferably 1/500th - fine for aerial photo purposes, but no substitute for a real tripod on land. Posting web images doesn't generally prove anything in this respect - a smashed bug on a windshield would look just as sharp on that small of a scale. Sometimes I get lucky and pull off a decent 6x9 RF exposure at 1/30th. But anything below 1/60th with the P67 is going to get affected by mirror slap.
Wise comment. Very handy. Especially when shooting Super 8. Used Gitzo for years. Now have very substantial one that has removable knob handle and can serve as walking stickSplit the difference... consider a monopod.
Thanks Philippe-Georges:This could be the best reply in this thread, or even on APUG!
View attachment 255833
Hasselblad SWC on Tri-X @ 1000 asa, full open aperture, handheld at a to slow shutter speed, but what a light ("In die Schatten steht sie das Licht" dixit Dürer).
Your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me!And if you're on a budget, you can make one (fixed height) for about $8 in parts from the local Big Box store. Length of 3/4" plastic pipe, pair or caps, 1/4-20 carriage bolt, nut, and a wing nut (to snug up against the camera's bushing). Trim the pipe to get the eyepiece height right, and the thing will double as a walking stick.
Me too. I expect that whatever Donald uses as a workshop would also amaze me as well.Your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?