Beware: there is a huge myth on this, so I understand that you don`t understand this. I don`t understand it, too
Think that when shooting handheld, the movement induced by arms (vibration) is waaaay higher (<<much higher>>) than the one from the mirror slap, so the mirror is not an issue at all. It looks like some can hold a camera like screwed over concrete, up to the point that the mirror vibrations cause unsharpness while their body don`t... (!)
Camera shake is caused by an angular movement; a lighter camera is not necessarily better to avoid this movement. In fact, I`d say the opposite, as a bigger mass need a higher force to be moved. Hmmm, and what about ergonomics? I think it plays a more important role here, even more than a lighter or heavier weight. And...
Just one more thing; "still maintain a sharp image". What does it mean? It`s obvious that handholding a camera will cause image unsharpness. So, is there a point where an unsharp image is sharp? Is there somebody that when shooting handheld, get the very same level of sharpness/unsharpness on each shot? I think not.
If it is small enough for the difference to not be detectable then you wont get much evidence.
...
Hmmm, and what about ergonomics? I think it plays a more important role here, even more than a lighter or heavier weight. And...
.
Thanks for all your replies!
One or two of you have mentioned that you can shoot at a slower shutter speed with a rangefinder and still maintain a sharp image. I don't understand why a rangefinder would allow slower shutter speeds. Could someone explain?
It doesn't. Its just that RF users try harder just for the kudos of being able to claim they shoot at 1/15.
I'd really LOVE to see data on this. There is a lot of anecdotal stories but I remain skeptical that the difference is as big as some folks portray it to be.
I've read that Rangefinders have better image quality than SLRs due to not having to accomodate a moving mirror.
How significant is this in practice?
Does anyone have any links to photos taken with a good rangefinder vs an SLR?
My background is 35mm slr shooting. Rangefinders are a bit of a mystery!
Tom
Find a high quality USAF 1951 bar target or other optical resolution pattern and you'll be able to test yourself.
For mirror slop, take images with and without mirror lock.
Find a high quality USAF 1951 bar target or other optical resolution pattern and you'll be able to test yourself.
For mirror slop, take images with and without mirror lock.
The slap you feel on your hands after shooting a reflex is pretty irrelevant for the sharpness of the image. It happens once the shutter is closed..... It's not possible to shoot my slr at the same speeds as my rangefinders ... Trust me I've tried and ended up with trash negatives... Clearly you have not shot a rangefinder with a good leaf shutter (and I'm not talking about a Leica).... You won't even know sometimes that you've clicked the shutter because it's so crisp and light you don't get any feedback from the body...
The slap you feel on your hands after shooting a reflex is pretty irrelevant for the sharpness of the image. It happens once the shutter is closed.
utterly insignificant unless you're mounting your cameras on optical benches and making pictures of test charts, and then you'll be hard pressed to see anything
I agreebut I measured a 50%improvement in resolution going from a Hasselblad to a Mamiya 6 for 35mm,I wouldn't bother. the name brands are all excellent.
BTW, the Mamiya 6 have great ergonomics. At least for me, it fits my hand perfectly, better than any other of my cameras.I agreebut I measured a 50%improvement in resolution going from a Hasselblad to a Mamiya 6 for 35mm,I wouldn't bother. the name brands are all excellent.
Heespharm, tripod mounted cameras will certainly benefit from mirror lock up, at certain speeds.
Shooting a mirror locked-up Hasselblad hand held could be somewhat difficult, at least for framing!
Heespharm, tripod mounted cameras will certainly benefit from mirror lock up, at certain speeds.
Shooting a mirror locked-up Hasselblad hand held could be somewhat difficult, at least for framing!
Basically, the tripod hold the camera steady. Here, vibrations inside the camera body could certainly be noticed at the image. So if we remove this source of vibrations (locking the mirror up), the image quality will be increased.
A metaphor, hope it is a fair comparison: Imagine there is an earthquake happening at your home, and there is a strong slam in the adjacent room. The vibrations induced by the door became negligible.
Now, think you`re at home at midnight, all is calm and silent. If there is a strong slam in the adjacent room, you´ll certainly notice that small vibrations.
How does the tripod make a difference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Resonance. If the vibrations induced by the mirror are near the resonant frequency of the tripod/camera combination, they (vibrations from the mirror lifting) will excite the tripod/camera assembly, causing it to "ring' at it's resonant frequency.
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?