Realistic shutter times expectations

[italy74]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys

 

one of the major strenghts of RF vs SLRs is the fact that they are able to shoot at much slower times than their bigger brothers. On one hand, this is good for static subjects because it gives you the possibility to work on shutter times instead of raising ISOs thus lowering overall image quality; of course this may be a bit more difficult on moving subjects but here comes the question: according to your experience which is the longest time you might expect to have a (reasonably) steady shot with a 35mm, 50mm and 90 mm lens ?

 

My experience with SLRs is as follows:

 

35 mm SLR => down to 1/15s (down to 1/8s - 1/10s if applying the 3 points technique, yet not so easy and quick to do for fast shooting)

50 mm SLR => down to 1/30s (1/20s)

90 / 105 mm SLR => down to 1/45 - 1/60s (1/30s.. maybe)

 

My hands are normal-to-steady and I think to have enough photographic experience to squeeze the most from my gear, but in RF world how much I could gain more (of course for static subjects, those moving will become blurred) ?

 

Consider the aforementioned lenses, thanks.

[Xmas]

Hi Dino

 

It depends on the SLR you were using and the rangefinder you intend to use.

 

I can get down to 1/8 holding on to lamp post or other support, static subject shooting 5 times, maybe 1/4 slower than that I need a monopod.

 

A Nikon F is very difficult to hold steady (for me) a F2 much easier, ditto Olympus OM1.

 

I can feel the double impulse from the M fabric shutter as the blinds are stopped, cause I dont grip the camera tight. A Canon P is similar. A Contax II seems less. A between the lens compact nothing at all.

 

A Nikon F2 kit (unless you use zooms,) is going to be heavier, and this weight difference allows a monopod to be carried, you can get rfdr zooms but they are slow.

 

Noel

[italy74]

Ciao

I have and use a Nikon F6 and had a D700 as well. With the FM3A I pay more attention to focusing than the shutter, although it's louder and less dampened than both the two other cameras.

Given a certain situation still to come, I'm considering to get an M (M3 / M6 / M7 / MP / Zeiss Ikon - still to decide, while I think I have already in mind the lenses, with the aforementioned focal lenghts involved ) and / or an R namely for manual focusing with long lenses. On one hand R's viewfinder is just great for this and on the other I appreciate the lightness and the optical excellence of M bodies as well, thus I'm trying to figure out if the choice may be decisively affected by a certain gain in terms of useable shutter times.

[Xmas]

Hi Dino

 

The only advantage of a R over an M is weight and reliability, i.e. less to go wrong. Ive not found people react to the shutter noise, much.

 

I prefer small and light, 35mm CV f/2.5 lens with a M2 (or Canon P), sometimes a 28mm, I've also got a M6 (and M4) but rare that I use it (them). I carry the camera kit all day, heavy is tiring.

 

If you need long lenses you may need a SLR.

 

Noel

[italy74]

Hi Dino

 

The only advantage of a R over an M is weight and reliability

Noel

 

Hem... maybe the contrary !!! :D

 

Joking aside, I noticed most of my shots are within the range of both systems, i.e. 28-105 mm, with an even more screening down to 35-90 mm and this is why I'm considering the M system with its great lenses, shining in dim-light events.

[masjah]

With my R8/R9, and less steady hands as I get older, I find that the conventional wisdom of a slowest shutter speed of 1/(focal length) to be hopelessly optimistic for images to be totally uncompromised by shake. I work on the basis of 1/(3 to 4 times focal length) unsupported hand-held. This is a significant constraint, since I like to use Reala at ISO 100. More and more of my non-tripod work therefore involves a monopod.

 

I can get away with a slower speed than this with a CM or Minilux. I don't have an M.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

R4 variants and R5 have either poor or no mirror dampening. I sold mine.

 

Earlier Leicaflexes, Sl, and SL2, and R6 and later models are superior by a long way.

 

mirror shake is not something I consider when using them.

 

If you need to get really slow, there is mirror prerelease attachment that also closes the lens. Attach a viewfinder to the hot shoe which effectively turns it into a responsive RF camera at that point.

 

Nothing is as good as a solid tripod, not even an M camera.

[Xmas]

Hem... maybe the contrary !!! :D

 

Joking aside, I noticed most of my shots are within the range of both systems, i.e. 28-105 mm, with an even more screening down to 35-90 mm and this is why I'm considering the M system with its great lenses, shining in dim-light events.

Hi Dino

 

Yea contrary sorry.

You should be ok 9cm or less, even without a 1:1 finder (0.85x), lots of lens choice, Leica, ZM, CV, Konica, or antiques from Nikon and Canon, for pastel shades.

It is difficult to learn to shoot with both eyes open, but you don't need to do that, even if it can help.

 

Noel

[bill]

There are a number of contributory factors including (but not limited to) tiredness, exertion, alcohol, tobacco, drugs (legal and otherwise). I have found that if critical sharpness is not the objective, I can handhold a 50 down to about 1/15 - provided I haven't just jogged to the spot, I am not pissed nor have I just snorted a line

 

The constant view provided by the rangefinder makes it easier than the blackout experienced with an SLR. I have also found it helps not to hold the camera at the eye for long periods of time. Raise, focus, drop, raise, compose, shoot.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[italy74]

Hi and thanks everyone....

of course I'm referring to normal conditions... I'd like to know your experience on how "slower than a SLRs" you're able to shoot with a RF handheld, all this. I'm not interested in monopods or tripods, I simply want to know how farther (in terms of time) can I shoot with a RF compared to a SLR.

@ John.. maybe I misunderstood but did I read correctly ( " I work on the basis of 1/(3 to 4 times focal length) unsupported hand-held. " ) you are able to shoot up to 3 - 4 stops faster than the lens actually would require for ?

 

Thanks again

[pico]

Hi guys

 

one of the major strenghts of RF vs SLRs is the fact that they are able to shoot at much slower times than their bigger brothers.

 

I disagree. For many of us, the heavier camera dampens camera shake.

 

Just the heart beating can shake a camera at 1/15th of a second.

[italy74]

Pico, you're right about the camera mass working in your favour, however it's unquestionable that, also for other reasons, RF may take reasonably steady pictures at lower shutter times and it has always been one of the strenghts of RF cameras.

[bill]

Pico, you're right about the camera mass working in your favour, however it's unquestionable that, also for other reasons, RF may take reasonably steady pictures at lower shutter times and it has always been one of the strenghts of RF cameras.

 

The horizontal-run cloth shutter helps.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[cheewai_m6]

The horizontal-run cloth shutter helps.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

i can feel the camera 'twist' on my m6. it's not particularly strong or different from other Ms i've used. but the shutter in Ms aren't as stable as what people say. having said that, it never actually causes any blurring.

 

i've shot down to 1/8 with a 50mm without any blurring. M's are awesome. i read somewhere snipers squeeze the trigger on their rifles as they exhale. i follow that advice and it works quite well. i used to just hold my breath. but exhaling is more stable.

[italy74]

i can feel the camera 'twist' on my m6. it's not particularly strong or different from other Ms i've used. but the shutter in Ms aren't as stable as what people say. having said that, it never actually causes any blurring.

 

i've shot down to 1/8 with a 50mm without any blurring. M's are awesome. i read somewhere snipers squeeze the trigger on their rifles as they exhale. i follow that advice and it works quite well. i used to just hold my breath. but exhaling is more stable.

 

That's nice, I have to try it. I too was shooting when holding breath and 1/8 at 50mm is really good.

[masjah]

Hi and thanks everyone....

of course I'm referring to normal conditions... I'd like to know your experience on how "slower than a SLRs" you're able to shoot with a RF handheld, all this. I'm not interested in monopods or tripods, I simply want to know how farther (in terms of time) can I shoot with a RF compared to a SLR.

@ John.. maybe I misunderstood but did I read correctly ( " I work on the basis of 1/(3 to 4 times focal length) unsupported hand-held. " ) you are able to shoot up to 3 - 4 stops faster than the lens actually would require for ?

 

Thanks again

 

Dino

 

What I mean is that the conventional wisdom says that, say, for a 100mm focal length, you need faster that 1/100 sec. I find I cannot get shake free images at that speed, and I need to use faster than 1/300 or 1/400. Sorry if I wasn't clear!

[Don'tknowmuch]

I bought my M2 so that I could use an old Elmar 35mm. This lens only comes into its own when quite stopped down (I aim at f6.3) so, naturally, I had to use slow shutter speeds. I now regularly use 1/15th without even taking more than one shot. Compare this to my OM1 where I'd go down to 60th with this much confidence, and to 1/30th with my OM2 Spot which I find a bit better balanced than my OM1.

It is the ability of the M2 to be used with slow shutter speeds that allows me to use my Summaron 2.8 and the Elmar to good effect, and which absolutely stops me lusting after more modern lenses.

In summary; I find the M2's usability at 1/15th to be equivalent to my SLR's 1/30th or even 1/60th.

Jim.

[italy74]

Dino

 

What I mean is that the conventional wisdom says that, say, for a 100mm focal length, you need faster that 1/100 sec. I find I cannot get shake free images at that speed, and I need to use faster than 1/300 or 1/400. Sorry if I wasn't clear!

 

Ciao John

and thanks for the clarification, however while this should be true with SLRs (although as I told you I manage to get reasonably sharp shots even at half of the time effectively needed) I know that RF have a clear advantage here and I was trying to "quantify" such advantage in practical terms.

[JBA]

I've shot sharp photos at 1/4 with a 50 Summicron in a static indoor environment and have motion-blurred photos at 1/60 with a 35 Summicron shooting action in an outdoor environment in bright daylight. What speeds you can hand-hold with any given camera depend on many different variables.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[italy74]

I've shot sharp photos at 1/4 with a 50 Summicron in a static indoor environment and have motion-blurred photos at 1/60 with a 35 Summicron shooting action in an outdoor environment in bright daylight. What speeds you can hand-hold with any given camera depend on many different variables.

 

That's great! (50mm - 1/4s), of course motion-blur isn't an issue here, I'm aware whatever moves in a such slow time is out of control, but being able to exploit long(er) shutter times opens new possibilities for me.