Re: [Leica] Sharpness and handholding (was leica report 70-180)

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Quite right about the use of wide apertures!  Unless you need the depth of 
field odds are your image sharpness will be better served by high shutter 
speeds than stopping the lens down to its optimum aperture.

Ansel Adams wrote of an experiment he did with a 35mm camera.  In his tests 
he could see evidence of camera shake all the way up to 1-250th of a second, 
with just a 50mm lens.

Certainly this was with a really jumbo enlargement, way behond most of our 
normal needs, but hey, if your going to chase the holy grail of sharpness 
speed is the only way to go. (and just to head off a fire fight, no, 
sharpness is not everything)

It is certainly an advantage to most Leica lenses that their wide aperture 
performance allows for high quality results without stopping down.


Dan




>
>Garth Jolly wrote:
>
><<<<This reminds me of a question I've always been meaning to ask. Most of
>my shots with my M6 are handheld.  When I can, I apply the rule of 1/ the
>focal length of the lens to get a minimum shutter speed for handholding (so
>the minimum speed      for a 50mm lens is 1/60s).  If possible, I shoot one
>shutter speed faster (so for a 50mm lens 1/125 second).   (cut)
>
>At want point in using faster shutter speeds does the law of diminishing
>returns mean that any camera shake will be so subtle as to be
>imperceptible?  >>>>>>
>
>Hi Garth,
>
>A very simple method of shutter speed and aperture that I have used for
>years and one doesn't need to remember technical aspects as it works
>effectivelly in situations where one doesn't require a great depth of
>field. Which is the case in many photo situations.
>
>I always try to work at the widest possible aperture and the highest
>possible shutter speed.  In this manner the combination might be 1000 at
>f1.4 on a 180mm  f2.8 or with the R8 1/8000 at 2.8.
>
>If you work in this manner and learning to make it work effectively, it
>eliminates much unwanted distracting backgrounds by becoming an enhancing
>mush of colour or B&W gradations. And assists in cutting camera vibration.
>I might clarify, "not always" as there is a limit to how steady any human
>can hand hold a camera at slow shutter speeds.
>
>Yep and I bet there will be some who say "I can hand hold at 1 second."
>Well I don't doubt it as I've squeezed a few of them myself and they have
>worked. But lots of times? Nope! These occur when it's a complete "Hail
>Mary" hoping you are going to get an image no one else has made.  Would
>they stand-up to 16X20 enlargements? Some might, but the chances are most
>wouldn't.
>
>One thing, going wide and high in some cases that combination might be an
>aperture of 1,0 at 1/15th with 3200 available darkness film due to lighting
>conditions. However, at the slower shutter speeds one merely uses greater
>care in squeezing the soft release shutter button, controlling breathing
>and or leaning / bracing oneself against something for supoort.
>
>Sure there are lenses, "long-heavy" that without question the ratio of
>sharp images increases with the use of a tripod. At one time I could hand
>hold some pretty long glass and every image was as sharp as though it were
>off a tripod.  But old father time comes to play along with miscalculated
>parachute jumping injuries and the strength goes out of the right shoulder
>and upper arm.
>
>In your mind you think you can do it, but in reality it is best to use the
>tripod or in the case of sports where tripods are not allowed, the monopod
>is most effective.
>
>So think wide aperture and high shutter speeds and this will always or
>should be on your side in eliminating the "shakies!"
>
>Ted Grant
>This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
>http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com