Handholdability of medium format cameras

[Donald Qualls]

"Amaze" is a multipurpose word. I don't even have a workshop these days, it was that or a darkroom, both for space and money. My old place, I did most of my "shop" work in the dining room (including operating my lathe), or in the carport.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The true answer is something like a Kenro gyro, but probably nobody wants to pay for one of those. My brother used one for handheld Linhof 4x5 Technika shots. Otherwise, I remain as skeptical as ever about certain handheld claims. Most of the time when I look at a neg or chrome under a loupe, their notion of sharp certainly isn't the same as mine. Yes, I've taken and even published my share of MF handheld work, so really do understand the limitations and compromises involved. But on a positive note, the most practical solution I've found is how current TMY400 film provides a new standard of fine grain combined with high acutance at fast speed, at least among b&w films. Yes, I'd rather be shooting TMX100 with a tripod, but having a faster version has made possible all kinds of 6x9 handheld shots in wind and rain and snow when a tripod would simply blow over, or photographing crisp water spray at speeds so high a tripod wouldn't make any difference. I happen to mix MF 16X20 prints into the same portfolios involving 4x5 and 8x10 originals, so can't fool around with compromises or shoot-from-the-hip techniques. But when I'm out with a Nikon, I'm after a completely different effect where conspicuous grain and a certain amount of casualness are perfectly acceptable, and the resultant prints are themselves small and deliberately understated or poetic - whole different ballgame.

 

[138S]

Wanted to explore an interesting (for me) topic: which MF cameras are the best for shooting without a tripod?

For next particular situation: 6x7... shooting dynamic portaits while playing with defocus... one may want reflex.

if one puts all in focus then there are many choices, but for dynamic portraits we have only those 10 shots in a roll, so we have to nail technically most os the shots if we want several good shots in a roll, many times expression or composition is flawed.

For that particular kind of job I prefer the Pentax 6x7 II, first I like the OOF depiction of the involved takumars, and then the camera is quite agile when having some practice, here a 9 years old girl using it:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/46463362194/

 

[xya]

for me it depends on how easily the camera fits into your hands and how easily the shutter can be fired. it has very little to do with the weight of the camera. a mamiya C is not small, but can easily be held with both hands against your waist (or belly) and needs no effort to push the shutter. so it's easy to shoot hand held down to 1/30 up to 105mm, even with important magnification. the same for the rb67 with left hand grip, which is a brick, but held with 2 hands, the shutter can be fired without effort.

I recently tested 3 6x9 folders at the same time, a voigtländer bessa rf (with a heliar), an agfa record III (with a solinar) and a rough moskva V, all shot hand held on a luminous day, speeds from 1/25 to 1/100. I did not expect the moskva to come out best. the worst was the voigtländer. the trigger on the bed is awkward to handle, the camera does not "naturally" fit into my hands and so I had some shake even at 1/100. the agfa doesn't feel solid and the shutter button on mine needs some effort to release, so I missed some sharp photos as well. the moskva feels sturdy, you can hold it firm with both hands and the shutter fires off easily.

this is a personal experience. if you can grip the camera firmly with both hands, hold your breath and fire. if you can, lean onto somthing solid. and in case of doubt, shoot twice...

 

[Pieter12]

For what it's worth, Weston shot most of his portraits hand-held with a 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Graflex.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And for what it's worth, most of Weston's portraits were very soft. His commercial work done in his hated studio was quite different from his personal work, and even today fetches only low prices. I've seen piles of it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

And for what it's worth, most of Weston's portraits were very soft. His commercial work done in his hated studio was quite different from his personal work, and even today fetches only low prices. I've seen piles of it.

do you mean Weston meant tack sharp just didn't come out that way? 'cause if he intended softness, all is swell.

 

[removed account4]

For what it's worth, Weston shot most of his portraits hand-held with a 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Graflex.

I've regularly hand held a graflex sir ( a 4x5 d ) at less than 1/30s and gotten good results, the graflex sir's are perfectly weighted ... to be used handheld at low speeds..

 

[warden]

And for what it's worth, most of Weston's portraits were very soft. His commercial work done in his hated studio was quite different from his personal work, and even today fetches only low prices. I've seen piles of it.

I assume they are intentionally soft. I mean the man knew how and why to use a tripod, right? ;-)

The problem with sharpness is that it is so overrated. There are some images that must achieve the pinnacle of sharpness to pull off a print, but in my experience as an art appreciator/collector "sharp enough" is good enough if the rest of the image holds together. I can't imagine walking away from a purchase because an image lacks that last 3% of sharpness but I have walked away for many other sins. YMMV

 

[138S]

For what it's worth, Weston shot most of his portraits hand-held with a 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 Graflex.

We may find lots of totally amazing portraits made with a glaflex, of course, but if playing with selective focus from a very narrow DOF then the Kalart is not by far as agile as the P67 system. Still one may make much better shots with a camera having a lot of drawbacks than with the most automated system.

With the graflex I found that better to stop a bit more to secure focus, with the P67 I usually move a bit forward backward to refine focus in the eyes, for me is the fasest way, I also was doing the same with the Kalart, not to say the difference. Also with a Reflex we see the defocus effect, how the background results, with the Graflex you may put what you want in focus, but you have to imagine the focus roll-off.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sharpness is a compositional tool just like any other. Portrait photographers often seek a particular point of sharpness, like the eyes, "selective focus". I like a lot of extreme detail in my big prints which actually draw the viewer right in. But even in those cases, there might well be certain areas more acute than others, to give specific emphasis, even if it's subconscious - a slightly sharper area will automatically draw closer inspection (if a person has normal eyesight).
Edward Weston did a lot of soft Pictorialist style work at first. Even though he later renounced it, manifesto-like, in relation to the emerging f/64 mentality, I happen to personally prefer his earlier work. But one still has to distinguish between images he made for himself, even if portraits, and the standard fee work he did in his portrait studio in order to make a living. Either way, his equipment wasn't great, and nothing was intended for big prints - mostly just contact prints - so very few of his negs hold up well to serious enlargements.
To make generic statements about any of this is nonsense, or what affects one kind of sale versus another. Why does a canvas by a famous Photorealistic painter sell for a million bucks - because it's so darn crisp and detailed. Why does a canvas by a famous abstract expressionist sell for a million bucks - because it isn't.

 

[Arthurwg]

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).

I do love this picture.

 

[warden]

Wanted to explore an interesting (for me) topic: which MF cameras are the best for shooting without a tripod?

How do my experiences map to yours?

Your experience is pretty close to mine actually. My easiest to hold for longer exposures is a Yashica TLR, probably because the feel of the shutter is so darned smooth and light and there is no mirror. Next is Hasselblad, which I expect to deliver blurry images with all that noise and vibration but somehow the images are sharp and clear when I want them to be. But I don't push my luck with that thing and stick to 1/125 sec if I can.

My most difficult is a Plaubel Makina 670 folder that looks like your GF670. I don't know what the linkage looks like between the shutter button and the shutter, but I'm imagining a Rube Goldberg kind of affair because of the heavy feel and noise it makes. I get quality results with that camera but again I'm pretty conservative with it and try to keep to 1/125 sec or so.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Phillipe might have taken a nice picture, but did so by lopping off several zones of shadows in order to get away with a handheld shot, which might or might not hold up under larger scale. In other words, it might have been a successful strategy in that instance, but certainly doesn't represent an answer to routine handheld circumstances where the chiarocuro of radical underexposure/overdevelopment would be inappropriate. I once took an 8 sec handheld 35mm exposure of a nighttime accident scene that ended up published in a local newspaper. It told the story and nobody cared about how technically horrible it was. Newsprint is a sketchy medium anyway. But I sure wouldn't ever put something like that in a picture frame or in a portfolio box.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Thank you Arthurwg.

Drew Weley is right, till a certain extend, and I got away...
But, the atmosphere was such that this approche was, in my eyes, the best one.
I first measured the light and saw that it was quit impossible to shoot without a tripod, bud I didn't carry one (didn't I say I don't like them).
So I set the shutter at 1/15th and the aperture full open and hoped for the best. Luckily the SWC has no mirror!

I always carry at least two film chassis, one with Tri-X at box speed and one at 1000 ASA. But I cheat a little: the Tri-X at 1000 ASA is actually processed at 1600 ASA as to keep the shadows somewhat open. After the demise of AGFA, Tri-X/D-76 has replaced my so beloved AgfaPan 400/Rodinal which gave more tonality and exposure play.
I developed according the time table for D-76 1+1 but used the E-76 1+1 formula by Chris Patton (thank you Chris). I don't like Metol and Hydrochinon as it gives me red and itchy traces om my skin.

BTW, I think that if I had played by the rules and used a tripod, and exposed for the shadows as usual, the lower parts and the columns could be exposed nearly correct but the highlights in the arches would have been overexposed and, perhaps, blowend. The Tri-X at box speed and processed in E-76 (= D-76) could not have fully managed this situation, and the Zone System on roll film isn't that obvious...
And everything, would be sharper and perhaps better, wouldn't it?

 

[film_man]

I have shot with many medium format cameras and hardly, if ever, I had them on a tripod. The one that gave me the sharpest results handheld was the Mamiya RB67, 1/15 was super easy and even 1/8 was possible. A Rollei 2.8FX, the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya C330 were next. They both could work at 1/15 and 1/30 was super easy. I suppose the difference is that the RB was so big and heavy it actually made it easier to hold still when in theory the TLR/Rangefinder should be simpler. For all the other ones, Pentax 67, Rollei 6000, Hasselblad H and V, Bronica, etc the 1/60 rule was good with the standard lens.

The easiest to handle were the Rollei TLR, Mamiya 6 and Pentax 67. The RB was easy to handle just got very heavy after a few hours walking around.

 

[DonW]

To your question it depends on whether you want to have the ability to change lenses. I love my Rollei TLR and regularly shoot it at 1/8 sec with good results. When using my Blad which gives me the ability to change lenses I have found 1/15 is on the boarder with the 80mm lens. Still don't like to go below that with the 50mm. A Mamiya TLR with interchangeable lenses is a good alternative. You don't get the mirror slap since they utilize leaf shutters.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have shot with many medium format cameras and hardly, if ever, I had them on a tripod. The one that gave me the sharpest results handheld was the Mamiya RB67, 1/15 was super easy and even 1/8 was possible. A Rollei 2.8FX, the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya C330 were next. They both could work at 1/15 and 1/30 was super easy. I suppose the difference is that the RB was so big and heavy it actually made it easier to hold still when in theory the TLR/Rangefinder should be simpler. For all the other ones, Pentax 67, Rollei 6000, Hasselblad H and V, Bronica, etc the 1/60 rule was good with the standard lens.

The easiest to handle were the Rollei TLR, Mamiya 6 and Pentax 67. The RB was easy to handle just got very heavy after a few hours walking around.

What film? ISO?

 

[138S]

The one that gave me the sharpest results handheld was the Mamiya RB67, 1/15 was super easy and even 1/8 was possible. .... For all the other ones, Pentax 67, Rollei 6000, Hasselblad H and V, Bronica, etc the 1/60 rule was good with the standard lens.

Well , weight maters, the P67II is 1.2kg, while the RB67 is a 2.5kg brick... Not extrange the brick is more stable, and with a 10Kg camera we would shot easy at 1/4 or 1/2.. Anyway we may also add weight to the P67 or to the hassie...

My personal experience with the RB67 is that better not shooting that low speed handheld, and I feel less practical difference from the overweight. Personally, when having to shot at that low speed I prefer using the monopod, some agility is lost but there is way less risk we waste the shot, in MF shots have to be nailed if possible, isn't it?

 

[DREW WILEY]

In terms of dumb luck, my very best selling P67 print was from a semi-handheld shot when I simply didn't have any time to set up a tripod. I rapidly pulled the truck off the road and rested the camera atop a wooden fencepost. The amazing light lasted only a few seconds. It was old style Ektachrome 64, a 55mm lens, and a unrealistically slow shutter speed (can't remember exactly). It printed wonderfully as an 11X14 Cibachrome, but stunk in 16X20, and was rather unsharp compared to my other 11X14 prints. Sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do, and hope for the best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

That is what I have used since I started having more than one lens. Hence I shoot ISO 400 film even when I do not need the speed. If the exposure gets near the threshold, out comes the tripod. As Edward Weston said to Ansel Adams, "There is nothing interesting to photograph more than 200 feet from the car."

 

[Sirius Glass]

technically perfect photographs are sometimes boring.

In general most photographs are boring. The exceptions of course are yours and mine.

 

[radiant]

If we talk about totally hand held scenario (without ease of neck strap) I would say TLRs are bad at low shutter speeds because those are usually quite lightweight (except Mamiya C-series). Difficult to hold still.

Holga 120 has far most easiest handholdability. Really light and you can carry it in hands all the times (which makes you take more shots).

And truth speaking I've started to like RB67 shooting freely without neck strap. It's heavy enough to get sharp shots at low speeds and once you learn the bottom grab it is not bad at all. But you need the neck strap - to give your hands a rest. I tried my RB67 with prism viewfinder and with grip and I cannot hold it with one hand in level for longer than 5 seconds. But without prism and handle - not too bad!

But if one has a neck strap then TLRs are winners. But we were talking handholdability?

 

[DREW WILEY]

TLR's are just so much different in shooting method than SLR's and rangefinders, that it's hard to include them even in the same category of methodology. They sure aren't as suitable for precise exposures. It's what the high school yearbook photographers used back in my time there. It's a shame how they thrashed those expensive Rollei TLR's; but tiny photos were all they needed. I've pretty much settled in on "Texas Leica" Fuji RF's for my dual usage (mostly tripod, but handheld if necessary).
And I like the longer 6x9 ratio I get with them, though 6X8, 6X7, and even 6X6 models are available too, or 645 on their smaller version RF's. But I want to squeeze as much film real estate as I can out of roll film, so 6x9 works best for me; and I can always crop the proportion down a little during enlargement if needed. The Pentax 67 system is way better suited to my long lens addiction, and the very nature of that dictates routine big tripod use; but once in awhile I still fire off a handheld shot with it, provided a shorter lens is used.

 

[narsuitus]

For me, when I shoot my RB67 handheld, the drop in image quality is enough to make me realize that I could have used a 35mm camera instead.