Influence of camera weight on picture blur?

[EspE1]

I have many times in dpr-forums and elsewhere seen various references to camera wight in relation to discussions on picture blur due to camera shake.

Often this has been in the way of people preferring a light camera to avoid blur. However, in my thinkning, the heavier a camera is, the more force is needed to acellerate it (=shake it) - which should imply that a heavier camera should be preferable in this context - until, of course, the camera gets so heavy that one immedately induce muscle shivering a a result of the shear strain to lift it.

(Of course, time is also a factor here as muscle fatigue may gradually, with increasing muscle shivering, literally edge its way into the picture, and hence camera shake, as a result.)

I would presume that there is a preferable middle ground here somewhere; a camera being not so light that it will substantially move from the tiniest of forces impacting on it, but on the other hand not so heavy that its weight immediately induces muscle trembling in the arms holding it.

Does anybody know if there are some hard facts available here from more scientific tests on what wheight means for the ability to keep a camera steady?

 

[Soenda]

The heavier it is, the harder time I have holding it still. Although the Vibration Reduction in the Nikons compensates in most situations.

--
http://www.pbase.com/soenda

 

[Mike_PEAT]

I would presume that there is a preferable middle ground here somewhere; a camera being not so light that it will substantially move from the tiniest of forces impacting on it, but on the other hand not so heavy that its weight immediately induces muscle trembling in the arms holding it.

Does anybody know if there are some hard facts available here from more scientific tests on what wheight means for the ability to keep a camera steady?

There can't be hard facts as everyone is different in terms of what they can lift and hold steady. You have to choose a camera AND LENS combination that feels good for you . As well, how you hold it, how you stand, how you hold your breath during the exposure all effect your ability to hold the camera still.

For instance, here's one I did with an Olympus E-330 (that I owned only a week, but used an E-300 for three years prior), with the 14-42mm lens at 14mm (28-84mm at 28mm equiv), handheld (with NO IS) for 2.5 seconds:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/Mikefellh/E-300Stuff/streetfest.jpg

I've also managed handholding a 500mm (1000mm equiv.) mirror reflex (catadioptic) lens at 1/50th; but since it was a mirror reflex lens I didn't have all the weight a standard lens would have so I could handhold it.

In terms of breathing, take a small breath in to hold it...if you take a large breath you will be shaking due to the pressure in your chest...some people prefer to let all the air out...whatever works for you.

 

[Robert Gotschall]

I believe that one of the advantages of the Sigma 50-500 zoom is its weight. My 70-300 with TC is usually more blurred then the Bigma and it weighs several times as much. I usually shoot from a monopod however.

 

[GaryDeM]

a camera's weight has nothing to do with its being held steady. i have 2 dslrs and a pentax optio S5i, all can be held as steady as required/needed to get blur free shots. the dslrs are fairly heavy. while the optio S5i is no larger than a pack cirgarettes and weighs just a very few ounces. with a heavy or light camera proper holding technique is still needed or any camera will move around. suggest a look up on a basic camera technique web site with pictures or drawings on proper camera holding methods.

 

[EspE1]

I don't seem to have formulated my question clear enough.

This is not a question of whatever techiques or technology a given phtographer may employ to lengthen his longest (relatively) blur free shutter time.

And besides the various such methodes referred to, there also obviously are individual variatons as to whatever such "longest blur free shutter time" any photographer may obtain - although with some long established and generally accepted rule of thumb (= some kind of average values) where maximum shutter time (for 35 mm/FF) is related to the inverse of the focal length.

This rule of thumb seem to reflect the fact that our bodies seem to be constructed in such a way that it is impossible for us humans to hold our hands completely still, (probably as a result of force - counter force within muscle tensions).

GIven this normal slight muscle trembling - which may get more pronounced as a person reach higher age, what does camera weight mean for the ability of such trembling to ruin a picture by inducing shake of the camera?

(And here we must of course consider the question in a general manner where we are not led estray by e.g. longer tele lenses with on the one hand narrow field of view with corresponding greater blurring effect from shakling, but on the other hand normally also with increasing weight correspoing to the increasing focal length and narrowing of field of view. We also must eliminate the varying effect each individual camera may have on muscle trembling, as the design of the camera (e.g. the grip) may lead to variations in the way a photographer holds a camera and hence in variations in the way forces in his muscle and skeleton system are distributed.)

The more mass an object has, the more force is needed to accellerate it. From this one could beleive that a heavier camera would be beneficial to counter ordinary muscle trembling. On the other hand, the heavier a camera is, the more muscle force (tension) is needed to keep it up - which could possibly result in increased trembling.

So what do we really know about this?

Has there been made any test to see how the weight potentially influences the muscle trembling, and what corresponding levels of camera shake results from it, for a sample of test persons?

 

[EspE1]

a camera's weight has nothing to do with its being held steady.

How can you know for sure?

 

[Isola Verde]

Has there been made any test to see how the weight potentially influences the muscle trembling, and what corresponding levels of camera shake results from it, for a sample of test persons?

Anyone sufficiently interested to go to the expense of performing such tests would surely have done so from a commercial interest, and therefore kept the results to themselves?

Google may be a better place to conduct your research - perhaps it's mentioned in the patent applications for the stabilisation systems that most cameras today have, the reason why so few people ever give this issue a thought!

Peter

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/recisch

TZ7 pictures: http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/tz7pics
Using the TZ5: http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/tz5

 

[Hank3152]

So what do we really know about this?

Has there been made any test to see how the weight potentially influences the muscle trembling, and what corresponding levels of camera shake results from it, for a sample of test persons?

Individuals are all built different having various size frames and builds and levels of physical conditioning therefore have different tolerances for muscle fatigue.

Good thesis for a grad student but for a photographer does it really matter when features like IS/VR and in camera stabilization are introduced not to mention monopods and tripods? The ergonomics, interface and balance are more critical when selecting a body........who's concerned whether camera A is 1.6oz lighter than camera B. Lenses are going to radically alter that equation anyway..........

Personally I prefer a larger more robust body like the D700, 5DmkII or D3 and try to overcome camera shake by using proper exposure settings and technique .........take the shot and move on........ it's not an endurance contest.
--
Regards,
Hank

 

[Roger99]

I think that you might find that this effect is a variable from individual to individual.

I myself like a little weight in my hand but not too much. The mass of cam and lens in days preceding image stabilizing lenses was important to me to reduce shake and it was pretty much dependent on a sweet spot. Too light and not enough inertia to too much and the shake would come from tired muscles after a while. Of course the latter would vary depending on the handlers fitness level.

These things would be possible to test but the results would be largely academic.

Basically you gotta find your own sweet spot as part of developing your own instincts.

Me, I got to the point where my limit seemed to be around 1 second (or more) hand held with the right combo (years ago now) and this was taken into account when feeling the lens in the shop. I suspect a formula for this decision would have been useless to me.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[Roger99]

Inertia!

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[Soenda]

I wonder if studies will have been done on other precision instruments such that you could extrapolate the results to pertain to cameras? I had been thinking about objects used in field sports, even bowling, but I don't know whether stillness is as important as in photography.

One activity that's been studied to death is golf, and in that sport the clubs must be held as still as possible before the swing. Is there any sense of which clubs are easier to hold steady, the drivers or the putters?

I know that in preparation for the latest Hubble repairs, extensive work was done with tools that could not be allowed to jiggle. Crew members practiced in special swimming pools to simulate weightlessness. I wonder if any thought will have been given to the question of mass of the instruments and steadiness there?

I'm not sure there is much actual application for the answer to the question, but it's very intriguing to think about.

--
http://www.pbase.com/soenda

 

[Roger99]

I'm not sure there is much actual application for the answer to the question, but it's very intriguing to think about.

Yes, yes the interesting thing about most research is the unpredictable ways the research is applied in the long run.

--
http://www.pbase.com/soenda

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[Chris59]

I think it also depends as much on personal strength, stability and preference as well as technique, control placement, camera shape and weight disposition and is therefore not really amenable to scientific analysis.

This is why it is always good advice to handle the camera in-store to see how it fits in your hands and how well it feels and works for you before making any decisions to buy.

 

[Brad99]

If the camera weighed a ton and I could still lift it, I'm sure there would be no shake blur due to inertia, so in theory heavy is best. However, I'm not sure the difference between 150gm and 1000gm would make for any clear benefit as the weight of your hands must have some levelling out effect.

I think holding the camera to the head, i.e. using a viewfinder, is important though in reducing shake. If our heads moved like chickens' then shake wouldn't be a problem................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIXN3dzprr8

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

I find that the bigger and heavier a camera is, the easier it is to hold steady.

But that is just my own preference and realization.

--
J. D.
Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and EVERYTHING that came in it!

 

[carl english]

I personally believe as I suspect the OP does that a heavier Camera is more stable, hand held. Its difficult to put into words but I feel you're more aware of the presence of the heavier unit and therefore concentrate more to keep steady.

Carl

 

[Roger99]

If the camera weighed a ton and I could still lift it, I'm sure there would be no shake blur due to inertia, so in theory heavy is best. However, I'm not sure the difference between 150gm and 1000gm would make for any clear benefit as the weight of your hands must have some levelling out effect.

I found that a Sigma superzoom (18-200 non-IS) DSLR lens is my new limit as fatigue takes over. Tired hands are shaky hands.

I think holding the camera to the head, i.e. using a viewfinder, is important though in reducing shake. If our heads moved like chickens' then shake wouldn't be a problem................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIXN3dzprr8

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[GaryDeM]

because till i bought my second dslr, which has SR, i did not own a camera that has sr. this means that any shakynees in the pics were due to me not holding the camera correctly. there has been no shakyness in my pics due me moving or shaking. they are steady. till the second dslr pruchase one p&s that i own is very light while the other, the dslr without SR, is quite heavy, there is no difference between the pics due to me moving. i hold the cameras correctly and use the proper stance while doing so.

see-
http://www.shortcourses.com/use/using2-1.html
there is a lot of basic photo info on this site.

 

[Hank3152]

I personally believe as I suspect the OP does that a heavier Camera is more stable, hand held. Its difficult to put into words but I feel you're more aware of the presence of the heavier unit and therefore concentrate more to keep steady.

All other things being equal, full framed cameras tend to be more stable than their smaller entry level cousins. The reason: simple inertia. The more weight, the more force it takes to move it.

--
Regards,
Hank