Heavier Means Steadier: Fact or Myth?

[Guest leica_mage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as I am concerned, a most valid question.

 

With my silver chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH (340 g), I have the impression I'm shooting steadier, but there is now a greater proportion of out of focus shots in low light.

 

With my black anodised (255 g), there were hardly any (as low as 1/4!).

 

Meanwhile, my black anodised 50mm Summicron (IV) (240 g) shots retain the same proportion of in focus to out of focus shots as before.

 

Is it the weight (therefore myth), coincidence, or is there some optical defect at work??

 

Any good input?

[Guest DuquesneG]

If the increased weight is in the right spot (w.r.t. center of gravity), and not so much it causes muscles to overly tense up, it would contribute to stability...in the case of the 35s, given the difference in weight, probably not a huge difference.

[stuny]

With photography and with firearms I've found that I'm steadier with heavier equipmnt, so long as it is not so heavy as to fatigue me.

[adan]

Two factors with inverse curves:

 

Anyone who watched weightlifting in the recent Olympics knows that the heavy lifters are quivering while they hold the barbell up for the required time. Not steady.

 

A heavier mass, however, has more inertia to resist movement.

 

As the mass being held increases, at some point the curves cross, such that more weight will increase shake and less weight will also increase shake. The exact point of crossover ( the just-right point) varies with the individual and other factors.

 

For me, for example, a Nikkor AF 180 is a bit light to hold steady, a Leica 70-180 is too heavy to hand-hold steady, and a Leica 180 f/2.8 is the easiest - in that focal length range.

 

I always found the ASPH 35 f/2 + a film M to be a bit front-heavy and had better luck with the pre-ASPH. But there it is - individual variation.

[NZDavid]

Heavier is steadier, definitely -- when you compare a Leica M with a point-and-shoot digital. The fact that these dinky little pointer snappers have done away with optical finders and everyone hold's them at arm's length when taking pictures is one of the main reasons they came up with "image stabilization."

 

But, as for steady shots with the Leica, I would think there is very little variation between those two lenses you mention -- it will come down to how steady you can hold it. I can get down to 1/15 -- 1/18 once or twice, but very marginal. Less than that I really need a tripod or to brace the camera.

[farnz]

Heavier is steadier, definitely -- when you compare a Leica M with a point-and-shoot digital. The fact that these dinky little pointer snappers have done away with optical finders and everyone hold's them at arm's length when taking pictures is one of the main reasons they came up with "image stabilization." ...

With respect, David, you're not really comparing like for like because with a p&s and the camera held with extended arms then the arms themselves effectively become a portion of the weight being held and everything is held steady by the shoulder muscles.

 

But a camera with an optical vf encourages the user to hold the camera to the face and provide three points of contact - two hands and the forehead or cheek - which will probably be inherently more stable than outstretched arms, and the arms themselves are tucked into the body so the biceps and triceps muscles control the weight but from close to the body.

 

With image stabilisation turned off you could try using a Digilux 3 in live view mode as a p&s versus a C-Lux 2 to see which is more stable over various shooting times to determine whether the extra weight adds benefit or not.

 

Pete.

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also, regarding a P&S camera held out from the body vs. a VF camera pressed against the face: The VF camera will rotate in the vertical plain less than a P&S camera since the fulcrum for the VF is very close to the camera (the photographer's face), and with the P&S very far from the camera (the photographer's shoulders). but this is not a function of weight, which was the original question.

[masjah]

I tend to agree with adan. I also find that weight induced tremor gets worse as I get older -witness my trying to carry a large, full mug of coffee. These days, I use a tripod a lot, or else fast film and large aperture lenses.

[spydrxx]

IMHO heavier isn't necessarily steadier. It varies by individual, as well as their overall posture and "muscle training", just as another poster mentioned relative to shooting a pistol or rifle. The more one trains and practices, generally, the more steady one becomes. Heavier/steadier is a different issue with tripods however, in which there seems to be a direct correlation.

[farnz]

I tend to agree with adan. I also find that weight induced tremor gets worse as I get older -witness my trying to carry a large, full mug of coffee. These days, I use a tripod a lot, or else fast film and large aperture lenses.

John,

 

Where did you find the tripod attachment for your cup of coffee?

 

Pete.

[ennjott]

The fact that these dinky little pointer snappers have done away with optical finders and everyone hold's them at arm's length when taking pictures is one of the main reasons they came up with "image stabilization."

Not everyone, only far-sighted people (mostly older users).

When viewing the screen from a distance of ~15 cm, you can rest the left elbow against the torso, similar to the position we use here for sports air rifle shooting. This is about as stable as using an optical VF.

 

I've seen many people though snapping images with just one hand..

[masjah]

John,

 

Where did you find the tripod attachment for your cup of coffee?

 

Pete.

 

Pete

 

LOL! Reminds me of the (old) story of the person who went to the computer store wanting to replace their slide out cup and saucer tray, which had snapped off.

[NZDavid]

Farnz, I probably wasn't clear enough --- I was being ironic -- I agree entirely. Those dinky whipper snapper point and shoots wouldn't really need image stabilization at all if they had decent optical finders so you could brace them against your forehead. It's a technical solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. IS may help, but it's far from essential.

 

SLRs v RFs is interesting. With no mirror slap, you can hold the RF much steadier at slow speeds. But not all SLRs are alike. Older, heavier ones, like Nikon and I suspect the Leicaflex, are more stable than newer plasticky ones. But the Olympus OM1 and OM2 managed to somehow be both relatively light and steady.

 

I suspect there's a cut-off point, lighter than which is unstable and heavier than which is overkill and debilitating to one's shoulder muscles.

[dpattinson]

With my silver chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH (340 g), I have the impression I'm shooting steadier, but there is now a greater proportion of out of focus shots in low light.

 

With my black anodised (255 g), there were hardly any (as low as 1/4!).

 

Have you checked your new lens for focus accuracy on a tripod? You specifically mention more OOF in low light, however it could be that in low light you are generally using the lens wide open and the focus error is more apparent?

 

I can generally detect blur caused by camera shake in low light shots by looking at what happens to point sources of light. If the blur is due to shake, you will see the point sources as wiggly lines. If it's due to a focus problem, they should be symmetric blobs.

[JHAG]

With longer lens (from M 90 up), I don't use my hand to steady it.

I lay the barrel on my fist or my forearm. Thus there is no tension

in the muscles, more suppleness which makes easier to remain

steady (after focusing, of course ).

[budrichard]

"Heavier Means Steadier: Fact or Myth?"

 

Actually, its basic physics 101.

Force=(Mass) X (Accleration) or

Acceleration= (Force)/(Mass), so as you increase the Mass for the same Force, the Acceleration decreases.

But and here is the big BUT, at the weights your are discussing such as the difference between a chrome and black Leica lens, it really doesn't make a difference. It's all your preception but then again, "Perception is Reality"!-Dick

[Guest leica_mage]

Have you checked your new lens for focus accuracy on a tripod?

No, but I am being forced to move in such a direction though I don't have the patience.

 

You specifically mention more OOF in low light, however it could be that in low light you are generally using the lens wide open and the focus error is more apparent?

No. I am a satanically steady shooter, going down as low as 1/4. This is a completely new phenomenon.

 

I can generally detect blur caused by camera shake in low light shots by looking at what happens to point sources of light. If the blur is due to shake, you will see the point sources as wiggly lines. If it's due to a focus problem, they should be symmetric blobs.

Of course.

 

... But and here is the big BUT, at the weights your are discussing such as the difference between a chrome and black Leica lens, it really doesn't make a difference. It's all your preception but then again, "Perception is Reality"!-Dick

Dick - still, the 85g extra is a difference, so it should have some effect, especially considering is a percentage in an already compact system, no?

[stuny]

Alex -

 

Sure it's a compact system, but it's a rather dense one. Other cameras its size feel like they'd float if dropped in water.