How much better is RF image quality over SLR?

[cliveh]

I concur.

+1

 

[frank]

I'm still going with the 11% answer.

 

[ciniframe]

Wow! Already 78 replies and comments. Sure don't want to wade into this holy war but, oh well.

About tripods and vibration there was something interesting I've noted in the past. Olympus, with the OM cameras, recommended that when used on a tripod above certain shutter speeds that you did not use a cable release. They said you should wrap your hands around the camera and release the shutter with your finger. I guess this was to use your hands as a 'dead weight' to help reduce vibration in their lightweight cameras. I guess it provides extra mass to absorb vibration from the mirror/stop down linkage movement.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.
I was taking some photos of a woodchuck family, with a 350mm/5.6 Soligor lens on a Spotmatic F. Mounted on a Tiltall, you could see vibration in the viewfinder for about 6-8 seconds after the exposure was made and that one frame was mush. Mounted on a huge beast of a CeCo tripod, it was rock solid. The Tiltall combined with that lens - and yes the tripod was screwed to the tripod mount of the lens - just had the right resonance to be excited by the camera mirror. I use the Tiltall under my Linhof ST IV and smaller cameras and have never had trouble with any other combination.

Loved your story, but I was skeptical about Tiltall vibration due to mirror slap of Spotmatic-F.

So I checked it out with my own Star-D and Spotmatic F and 135mm Super Takumar.

You must have had that thing racked up to eye level... At that height, touching a leg of the tripod or the camera sets up a visible vibration that takes about 6-8 seconds to settle down.

That part of your story checks out. The Tiltall, at full height, will vibrate when disturbed.

It's easy to see any vibration when it happens by slightly de-focusing on a high contrast object - which will cause the microprism to glisten, and the glistening shapes flicker with the slightest movement. I don't think I need the 300mm to see that.

After allowing the camera to settle I didn't see any new vibrations after firing the shutter with cable release or self-timer. Winding the camera definitely setup new vibrations. But firing tended to do nothing.

Now there is a difference between my test with 135mm, with camera body mounted to tripod... Versus your lens-mounted 300mm... So if you still have the rig, can you check again? Or can you recall... did you wind and fire by hand? Or did you use cable release or self-timer?

 

[Bill Burk]

I did a bit of testing, trying to hold an A-1 SLR by hand at slow shutter speeds without moving. Focused on a distant object and put the split-focus mark on a spot across the room. Free-standing, the spot had moved when the mirror came back. Braced, by leaning against the wall, I was able to keep the spot in place fairly well.

My theory is that SLR users are at a disadvantage when trying to handhold at slow speeds, because you can't keep your eye on the subject.

Another theory relates to the type of camera: I used an ES-II for years, whose automatic shutter will silently give a slower speed than you can safely handhold. A few rangefinders that I use have manual shutter speeds. I think when I select a slow shutter speed on a rangefinder, I deliberately and thoughtfully consider how careful I will have to hold to avoid camera shake.

To support this idea, I also got lousy photographs with a Canon AF35ml which suffers from the automatic shutter problem as the ES-II. It's a rangefinder, but not one that takes better pictures than an SLR.

 

[heespharm]

I did a bit of testing, trying to hold an A-1 SLR by hand at slow shutter speeds without moving. Focused on a distant object and put the split-focus mark on a spot across the room. Free-standing, the spot had moved when the mirror came back. Braced, by leaning against the wall, I was able to keep the spot in place fairly well.

My theory is that SLR users are at a disadvantage when trying to handhold at slow speeds, because you can't keep your eye on the subject.

Another theory relates to the type of camera: I used an ES-II for years, whose automatic shutter will silently give a slower speed than you can safely handhold. A few rangefinders that I use have manual shutter speeds. I think when I select a slow shutter speed on a rangefinder, I deliberately and thoughtfully consider how careful I will have to hold to avoid camera shake.

To support this idea, I also got lousy photographs with a Canon AF35ml which suffers from the automatic shutter problem as the ES-II. It's a rangefinder, but not one that takes better pictures than an SLR.

I can do the same test with my pistol but that doesn't mean I'll hit the same mark everytime... Pistol shooting and taking photographs are very similar in technique


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

I can do the same test with my pistol but that doesn't mean I'll hit the same mark everytime... Pistol shooting and taking photographs are very similar in technique


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But with a pistol there is the trajectory of the bullet to contend with, from the kick-back. Not so with an SLR camera, unless you equate the two with mirror slap and/or curtain movement. - David Lyga

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Loved your story, but I was skeptical about Tiltall vibration due to mirror slap of Spotmatic-F.

So I checked it out with my own Star-D and Spotmatic F and 135mm Super Takumar.

You must have had that thing racked up to eye level... At that height, touching a leg of the tripod or the camera sets up a visible vibration that takes about 6-8 seconds to settle down.

That part of your story checks out. The Tiltall, at full height, will vibrate when disturbed.

It's easy to see any vibration when it happens by slightly de-focusing on a high contrast object - which will cause the microprism to glisten, and the glistening shapes flicker with the slightest movement. I don't think I need the 300mm to see that.

After allowing the camera to settle I didn't see any new vibrations after firing the shutter with cable release or self-timer. Winding the camera definitely setup new vibrations. But firing tended to do nothing.

Now there is a difference between my test with 135mm, with camera body mounted to tripod... Versus your lens-mounted 300mm... So if you still have the rig, can you check again? Or can you recall... did you wind and fire by hand? Or did you use cable release or self-timer?

Exactly.
It was a 350, not a 300, and I used the selftimer. I don't recall the shutter speed but it was pretty slow.
A slick way to see camera movement is to stick a laser pointer to the camera somewhere.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

But with a pistol there is the trajectory of the bullet to contend with, from the kick-back. Not so with an SLR camera, unless you equate the two with mirror slap and/or curtain movement. - David Lyga

If you place a gun with the axis of the barrel perfectly horizontal, and arrange to have a second bullet dropped from a height equal to the axis of the barrel as soon as the fired bullet exits the muzzle, the two bullets will hit the ground at the same instant.
However. A pistol begins to recoil as soon as the bullet begins to accelerate. My Ruger single action .45 weighs 40 ounces and the bullet weighs 235 grains, for a ratio of a bit less than 40:1. The recoil will translate to muzzle rise due to the axis of the bore being above the point of support; in other words how tightly you hold the gun and with one or two hands will influence vertical shot placement. If your grip is inconsistent you get vertical shot stringing. Recoil does not influence the external ballistics of the bullet, it effects the angle of the barrel as the bullet exits the muzzle.

And I don't think I've seen anyone mention how the shutter release (analogous to trigger control) influences movement.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . And I don't think I've seen anyone mention how the shutter release (analogous to trigger control) influences movement.

In the days of box cameras, I've seen "photographers" whack the shutter release as though they were squashing a bug. At about 1/40 second they got a lot of blurred photos.

 

[heespharm]

Wow you guys are two literal and technical... I see why I left these forums four years ago... So many ornery people here... And it's gotten worse since I left!

What I did not mention is anything about trigger control...

What I meant was to get your picture at low shutter speeds it's just like shooting, breathing control, correct grip, elbows in, supported position... In that way it's very much like shooting not in trigger control silly people..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

Honestly, heespharm, no one is getting 'ornery'. We are simply solving the dichotomy of the relationship of shooting a gun and shooting a photo. In a way, both are similar in that we aim both 'vehicles' and have to hold steady.

My question was concerning the change in aim due to the firing of a gun: was that bullet's trajectory determined before or after the bullet left the barrel? E von Hoegh seems to posit that the bullet's angle is determined by the recoil and it would be difficult to disagree with that common sense. Thus, I guess that we have to assume that that recoil is present before the bullet leaves the barrel. And I wondered, as, seemingly he did, how that meshes with pressing a camera's shutter. I say that pressing that shutter can release vibration that can readily influence the wanted aim, before the film is exposed, by the mirror's hitting the fresnel area and by the curtains hitting their end-posts, much like the recoil of a pistol can influence that bullet's aimed target.

No one is getting too esoteric here. No one is getting flummoxed. We are all learning about similarities and no one is getting shot. Pax et concordia. - David Lyga

 

[heespharm]

Honestly, heespharm, no one is getting 'ornery'. We are simply solving the dichotomy of the relationship of shooting a gun and shooting a photo. In a way, both are similar in that we aim both 'vehicles' and have to hold steady. My question was concerning the change in aim due to the firing of a gun: was that bullet's trajectory determined before or after the bullet left the barrel? E von Hoegh seems to posit that the bullet's angle is determined by the recoil and it would be difficult to disagree with that common sense. And I wondered, as, seemingly he did, how that meshes with pressing a camera's shutter. I say that pressing that shutter can release vibration that can readily influence the wanted aim, by the mirror's hitting the fresnel area and by the curtains hitting their end-posts. - David Lyga

It's not just here and it's not you... But it's the general attitude here... I've discussed it with other apug refugees on my other hobby forums... Don't know why I even came back... But that's neither here nor there

I don't think a camera shutter is really going to throw off aim that much...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

Exactly.
It was a 350, not a 300, and I used the selftimer. I don't recall the shutter speed but it was pretty slow.
A slick way to see camera movement is to stick a laser pointer to the camera somewhere.

Laser is a good idea and I've got that...

So here's the result: Camera mounted on Star-D tripod at full height.

Laser pen clipped to the hotshoe and aimed across the garage to the Ping Pong table...

Tap the tripod and I get a light show worthy of playing Pink Floyd to (try Saucerful of Secrets). But after it settled...

Fired Spotmatic-F with self-timer at 1 second. Definitely see first vibration when mirror goes up. It's slight compared to the earlier Laserium.

The mirror down caused about twice the vibration - it was more intense when the mirror went down.

But here is the kicker!

I repeated the test with my M2

Same/similar vibrations occurred! First curtain set off a vibration, and the second curtain set off another - as with the Pentax, a little more intense on the closing of the shutter.

Now that really kicked my goat. And I don't even have a goat.

I always hated the Canon AF35ml, and don't know why I did it... but there were two in good condition at the Goodwill yesterday so I picked up the better of the two (the ASA dial turned more freely). It also has two kicks on the laser.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Very interesting test, Bill!

The angular extent of the vibration can be translated to the blur size at the film plane. I have a reference book at work with the necessary maths...it can be estimated using basic lens geometry.

 

[RobC]

In Zeiss Camera Lens News No4, there is a piece (10 Steps to Success in High Performance Photography) about maximising the resolution from your Lens and film. It rcommends using a very stiff tripod BUT also to use a video head with fluid damping set quite high. It says do not lock the head and keep your hands cupped around the camera. The fluid damping and your hands absorb the camera vibration which your mirror and shutter create. So all those who stick their camera on a tripod and use a cable release are doing it wrong (according to Zeiss). I think it makes a lot of sense.

You can get it at http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?page_id=18 Spring 1998 No4

 

[heespharm]

In Zeiss Camera Lens News No4, there is a piece about maximising the resolution from your Lens and film. It rcommends using a very stiff tripod BUT also to use a video head with fluid damping set quite high. It says do not lock the head and keep your hands cupped around the camera. The fluid damping and your hands absorb the camera vibration which your mirror and shutter create. So all those who stick their camera on a tripod and use a cable release are doing it wrong (according to Zeiss). I think it makes a lot of sense.

Very cool info


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

I read somewhere that tests were done and it was found that it is impossible to hand hold any camera at slow speed and keep it still. You need a speed of at least 1/125 to compensate for your hand movement.

AND

Bear in mind that people using Rangefinders are using short to wide lenses, 35, 28, 21 or even 18mm focal lengths. Shorter focal lengths don't magnify the movement in the way that an 50, 85 or longer lens does. So it figures that RF users think they can hold their camera still at slow speeds. They can't but the short focal lengths they use don't show up the movement so much, especially in a small print (8x10). Get them to put a 135 lens on and photograph something fairly close at 1/15 and you'll be able to see the movement plain as night and day compared to a properly tripod mounted camera using Zeiss advice about damping.

 

[heespharm]

I read somewhere that tests were done and it was found that it is impossible to hand hold any camera at slow speed and keep it still. You need a speed of at least 1/125 to compensate for your hand movement.

AND

Bear in mind that people using Rangefinders are using short to wide lenses, 35, 28, 21 or even 18mm focal lengths. Shorter focal lengths don't magnify the movement in the way that an 50, 85 or longer lens does. So it figures that RF users think they can hold their camera still at slow speeds. They can't but the short focal lengths they use don't show up the movement so much, especially in a small print (8x10). Get them to put a 135 lens on and photograph something fairly close at 1/15 and you'll be able to see the movement plain as night and day compared to a properly tripod mounted camera using Zeiss advice about damping.

Yeah gonna need to see source material on that...

Tho I don't doubt it... I can get 1/15 but that's in a supported position and not freestanding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Truzi]

In the days of box cameras, I've seen "photographers" whack the shutter release as though they were squashing a bug. At about 1/40 second they got a lot of blurred photos.

When I was a child I was given my mother's old Brownie 127-film camera (an Holiday, I think). My Dad used to tease me as I'd move the whole camera when pushing the button. I have a lot of blurry photos from my first couple rolls.

 

[RobC]

Yeah gonna need to see source material on that...

Tho I don't doubt it... I can get 1/15 but that's in a supported position and not freestanding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But 1/15 means nothing without knowing what focal length and how far away the main subject was. Its no good quoting 1 parameter of many for it to make any sense.

 

[heespharm]

But 1/15 means nothing without knowing what focal length and how far away the main subject was. Its no good quoting 1 parameter of many for it to make any sense.

Sorry with my 35mm wide angle


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

But 1/15 means nothing without knowing what focal length and how far away the main subject was. Its no good quoting 1 parameter of many for it to make any sense.

More interesting RobC, would be to learn what's behind the claim that you need 1/125 because you are contradicting common wisdom which claims the lowest safe handheld shutter speed is 1/ (focal length of lens in mm).

I don't doubt it in absolute terms, but would like to know what thinking goes behind that advice.

Unless you are talking about a 4x5 camera with a normal lens...

 

[frank]

I've read an old photo magazine article which demonstrated with pics that hand held shutter speeds less than 1/1000sec with a normal lens resulted in images degraded by camera movement during exposure. It's like pixel peeping time before there were pixels. The degradation showed up under high magnification.

 

[RobC]

More interesting RobC, would be to learn what's behind the claim that you need 1/125 because you are contradicting common wisdom which claims the lowest safe handheld shutter speed is 1/ (focal length of lens in mm).

I don't doubt it in absolute terms, but would like to know what thinking goes behind that advice.

Unless you are talking about a 4x5 camera with a normal lens...

Oh shame shame shame on you.

My recollection was that it was god himself who said it but I didn't like to say so without finding it first. Well I have found it and I was wrong. It was 1/250 to hand hold still.

You should read Ansel Adams the The Camera sometime. The section on hand held cameras "Shutter Speed" around page 116.

It's enlightening to know that experts on the zone system haven't read his books or weren't paying attention when they did.

Now who is going to contradict god himself?

Kind of puts 1/15 into perspective if he's right and I have no reason to doubt it