fast shutter speed needed for handheld?

[LeAlain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Deciding for a M9M M10M or M11m, in the coming weeks, but I am struggling with the next issue:

As a photographer since '88 I know medium format needs shorter handheld shuttertimes for pictures than 24/36 mm, so no rule of approx. 1/focal distance. But does this also apply for 40 or 60 MP Leica M? some say it does, but sounds unlogical.

After some test shooting with an M11M this week, I am more puzzled, because in fact I do need very fast shutter speed for handheld.

Can somebody help me with this shutter speed question?

Edited December 15, 2024 by LeAlain

[jgeenen]

I have a 27" screen with 2560 pixels on the long side. if I zoom into my M11 file (which is about 9500 pixels wide) to 100%, it is like looking at a 87" wall image from as close as 15".  To avoid motion blur, shutter blur (not to mention depth of field or focussing errors), you need to take plenty of care during capture. Fast shutter speeds or sturdy tripods, ultra sharp lenses at optimum aperture etc. That is the same as loading a low speed high resolution film like the Kodak Technical Pan to produce ultra high resolution grainless pictures in the days back then or taking a medium format film and blow it up to wall size.

So yes, if this is the reason for getting a 60Mpix camera (or want to utilize cropping to simulate telephoto lenses), you need to take very short shutter speeds.

In day to day use I usually use short shutter speeds (eg. 1/4f) to get the best starting point. But I don't hesitate to consciously go to 1/15 or 1/30 if that is needed for the image but I am always aware that those results might not be the best starting point for cropping or wall papers.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by jgeenen

[Dazzajl]

M cameras do seem to suffer with a bit more shutter shock than than their 35mm sized peers, so 1/focal length might not be quite enough in all cases but it’s not something extreme you need to worry about. Especially as you can push the ISO way up and have a nice solid shutter speed so easily with the monochrom cameras. 
 

The interesting choice will be which of those body options you go for. The sweet spot money to feature/usability point is definitely the one you’ve not included, the 246. 

[LeAlain]

thanks for your answer, helps.

New question, when I see the current market, there is a choice between a 246, an M9M and and M10 (not mono.

All in the same price range. Wouldn't the M10 not do better in B&W than the 246 or M9M? Even if it's a Bayer one.

[Dazzajl]

A monochrom camera is not a golden ticket to elevated black and white images and you could make incredible mono shots with the colour M10. 
 

What you get from having a mono camera is a little adjustment to your mindset when you’re shooting. A reset on your creative choices perhaps, a camera that takes you out of autopilot and makes you think again. 
 

I’ve got a nice selection of lenses for my 246 but I’ve not taken the 28mm f5.6 off for ages now. Taking away colour, close focus, narrow depth of field and only shooting wide scenes has made me totally rethink the way I shoot. 

[pgk]

To use an analogy. Using a target rifle to hit a small target requires precise stability. To ensure that a very small pixel only captures information about only the part of the image that it is requred to do so also requires absolute stability. What you are actually trying to do in both cases is to ensure that the only motion which exists when the trigger shutter is released is in the direction of the barrel/lens axis as the shot is taken. There are many ways of helping to achieve this including fast shutter speed, carfeful grip or tripod/bipod/monopod. But it all depends on the conditions and subject matter too. So there is no definitive answer but there can be many cascading solutions.

FWIW my own take on this is to use a camera with the appropriate number of MPixels for your output requirements, unless of course you simply want to examine all photos at high magnification just to satisfy your own desires for absolute precision. Personally I find ~25MPixels to be a sweet spot requiring slightly more care than 35mm film but care which is not excessive (the nect higher shutter speed than used for film is as good a guide as any). I'm probably in a minority though as greater MPixels seem to be better to many although in practice my higher MPixel body is my least used.

[LeAlain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW my own take on this is to use a camera with the appropriate number of MPixels for your output requirements, unless of course you simply want to examine all photos at high magnification just to satisfy your own desires for absolute precision. Personally I find ~25MPixels to be a sweet spot requiring slightly more care than 35mm film but care which is not excessive (the nect higher shutter speed than used for film is as good a guide as any). I'm probably in a minority though as greater MPixels seem to be better to many although in practice my higher MPixel body is my least used.

 

 

Couldn't have said it better. Today I did excessive testing (in the field) with M11, M11M and today used M10. I want it for B&W. I will buy the used M10. 

I am a photographer with skilled background, no pixel peeper but with knowledge about what is important and what is just 'pixel peeping', I do not pretend to know better then others, but my decision is based on wanting a camera that is as light as possible, as small as possible and with the best image output. Very important aspect is the fact that I don't have to use faster shutter times as to avoid camera movement due to high MP of M11. The movement I see in the M10 (converted to B&W), is very natural, reminds me of my days when I was shooting film in the 80's/90's.  I get a camera that shoots color for free, I sometimes I find it convenient. 

The superhigh Iso's aren't that important, when scenes need more than 6400 (beautiful noise with M10), the scene is so dark that I won't be shooting it anyway, most of the times these situations aren't contrastful situations so they don't give beautiful results anyway

[RobW0]

I have not found that I need higher shutter speeds on my M11s than I did on my M10-R. With care I find I can handhold a 35mm or 50mm lens down to 1/15 with no problem. 

[pgk]

15 hours ago, LeAlain said:

The superhigh Iso's aren't that important, when scenes need more than 6400 (beautiful noise with M10), the scene is so dark that I won't be shooting it anyway, most of the times these situations aren't contrastful situations so they don't give beautiful results anyway

One problem with working in low light levels is that often contrast is not high enough to enable rangefinder focusing, so again, this is starting to drift outside of the M's operating parameters. I really enjoy using M cameras but only when using them within their 'zone of viability' where they are indeed a delight to use.

[ramarren]

I have also not found much need for "ultra fast" shutter speeds in my photography ... but most of my photography is not geared up on ultimate resolution. When I need that, I always use a sturdy tripod regardless of the shutter speed. 

The M10 Monochrom and its sibling M10-R have become my standard cameras. And it's obvious to my eye what the benefits of the M10-M are over the M10-R for B&W photography... it simply records more detail and more gradations between dark and light. No amount of monochrome manipulation on the M10-R raw files nets the same thing. The other plus of the M10-M is that I can use a selection of B&W filters to adjust spectral relationships in the exposures at little cost due to the M10-M's exceptional ISO/dynamic range capabilities. 

Other people may not do exactly what I do, and find the converse. But that's my finding.

G

[DadDadDaddyo]

I find much advice in this thread that does not align with my own experience with Leica rangefinder bodies, especially as relates to minimum lighting conditions or minimum shutter speeds required for a "successful photograph", which I'll leave each photographer to define for himself or herself.

I speak from the perspective of a Leica rangefinder user of well over 50 years. I assert this not to toot my own horn, nor to wax nostalgic over past techniques that are sometimes overlooked in today's photography. Rather, as an available light photographer of many years, I find Leica rangefinders to be capable of much more than many modern users sometimes give them credit for. Their mechanisms were beautifully designed to operate with minimal vibration, especially as compared to single lens reflex bodies of the era, with their mirrors slamming around inside. 

If anything, the digital Ms offer enhanced convenience for today's handheld photographer, thanks to their elevated ISO range. The fastest film effective speed I typically used to run in my film bodies was 1600, maybe once or twice, 3200 on an experimental basis. Typically I operated with Tri-X, at a rating of 400.

The combination of such film speeds, with lenses of f/1.4 or f/2 aperture (and several of f/3.5 or f/4,  or slower) necessitated an investment of time, spread over years, devoted to practicing handheld exposures at low shutter speeds. I don't want to go into specifics as to the shutter speeds I'm comfortable with for, as with all things, "it depends."

And truly, the comparison should be between what you currently think you can do, and what you discover you can do over time. Practice and technique matter. 

Such practice has stood me in good stead as I continue to pursue available light photography in my 70s.

I would encourage today's photographers to explore and push the perceived boundaries of their own capabilities, and not to base their estimation of their own limits on the word of others, nor on conventional received wisdom, nor on expectations of continuing enhancements to the operating limits of digital technology.

Go out and shoot. 

Edited December 25, 2024 by DadDadDaddyo

[AceVentura1986]

I often will shoot at 1/30 in order to capture motion blur and was worried about this issue. I ended up testing an M10M and an M11M back to back specifically at 1/30. I found that careful handholding works very well but that the M11M still can introduce some camera shake. I don’t know if that’s a result of the extra sensitivity of the 60mpx sensor versus the smaller 40mpx sensor or the new shutter mechanism that is required to close and then open and close again with each shot, something the M10 variants do not do. Perhaps it’s a combination of both. Regardless, I did find some camera shake in the M11M but not in the M10M. 

I opted for the M10M instead and am comfortable shooting handheld at 1/30 without camera shake. Of course, YMMV. 

[Sergius]

I'm still hesitant to buy an m11. But if I shoot with 18 or 36 mb does it change anything about motion blur? Or is there the same problem?
 

[AceVentura1986]

23 hours ago, Sergius said:

I'm still hesitant to buy an m11. But if I shoot with 18 or 36 mb does it change anything about motion blur? Or is there the same problem?
 

That’s been the subject of debate before on this forum. I tend to think setting it to a smaller DNG file should have no difference on camera shake. The reason is that the camera’s pixels are still the same size regardless of resolution. The smaller the pixels the more likely the sensor is to register camera shake. 

All this process does is take a 60 mpx image and reduce it in-camera to a smaller DNG. If the original capture was blurry then the reduced image should still be blurry, at least in principle.

 

 

 

[Steve Ash]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb AceVentura1986:

That’s been the subject of debate before on this forum. I tend to think setting it to a smaller DNG file should have no difference on camera shake. The reason is that the camera’s pixels are still the same size regardless of resolution. The smaller the pixels the more likely the sensor is to register camera shake. 

All this process does is take a 60 mpx image and reduce it in-camera to a smaller DNG.

 

"If the original capture was blurry then the reduced image should still be blurry, at least in principle."

Your final conclusion is wrong. If you reduce an M11M image that registered camera shake due to improper handling and reduce it to the size of an M10M image size, than it will look as good or bad as if you had handled the M10M the same way as the M11M. 

On the other hand if you handle both cameras correctly the M11M will still hold a higher resolution than the M10M. 

Edited January 6 by Steve Ash

[Sergius]

5 minutes ago, Steve Ash said:

On the other hand if you handle both cameras correctly the M11M will still hold a higher resolution than the M10M. 

I would like to handle the m11 like my m9. This is my goal. Will the results regarding motion blur be the same?
 

[Steve Ash]

I recommend to test yourself. In my point of view it is a no-brainer to upgrade from an M9 to a M11 anyway. The M9 should be well written off, and there is a huge overall jump in technology to gain by moving to the M11 or the M11M in my case.

 

 

[AceVentura1986]

23 hours ago, Steve Ash said:

Your final conclusion is wrong. If you reduce an M11M image that registered camera shake due to improper handling and reduce it to the size of an M10M image size, than it will look as good or bad as if you had handled the M10M the same way as the M11M. 

On the other hand if you handle both cameras correctly the M11M will still hold a higher resolution than the M10M. 

@Steve Ash I tend to disagree with your conclusion as any reduction in image will still be based on the same pixel size. However, I have very limited experience with the M11 line of cameras so, as I said in my post. Has this been your experience? I just don’t see how reducing an image with camera shake will correct the camera shake. 

Further, my (albeit) one experience shooting an M11 was in an A/B test w an M10 under very controlled conditions in a Leica Store Miami. While most came out OK, there were a few that clearly showed shake that seemed like mirror slap, something impossible on a rangefinder camera. The conclusion that I drew is that it might have been attributed to shutter slap, ie, the shutter closing, then opening, and then closing again. 

Also, this isn’t a question of “improper handling” of an M11. There are many circumstances when I’ve dragged a shutter specifically to show movement in a subject. Ideally, the photo’s background should be rendered as clearly as possible in order to accentuate the subject’s motion. Examples would be dancers, musicians, small children or a speeding object like a car or bicycle. In this case the motion blur is a desired result not a result of “improper handling”. Perhaps you’re ok shooting at 1/2x or 1/4x focal length but such high shutter speeds preclude artistically intentional slow shutter speeds. I prefer being able to shoot at 1/FL. 

[jaapv]

It is all a matter of magnification - if a high resolution image is viewed at 100% it will automatically show more motion blur and other flaws than a low resolution image  at 100% simply because the magnification is higher. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ramarren]

On 1/6/2025 at 5:12 AM, Sergius said:

I would like to handle the m11 like my m9. This is my goal. Will the results regarding motion blur be the same?
 

I suggest you try it and see what it does. Musing on and on about theoretical behavior is a waste of time ... Just experiment and see what you get.

G