Handheld or Tripod

[Michael Erlewine]

Just for kicks, I have to see the difference between handholding the new Hasselblad X2D2 and using a light tripod. See for yourself. Here are two images taken with the Mark II and the XCD 20-35 E lens, one handheld and one on tripod. Of course, the handheld version depends upon your hands and how you hold it,. However, from my experience, although the handheld version is quite good, the tripod is considerably better, as I wondered about and expected. So, if I have the patience and time, I will continue use a tripod to get that difference, which is still there. First image is handheld, the second tripod.

 

[SrMphoto]

What was the shutter speed used?
My notes to the topic:
Tripod is always better. The difference is sometimes negligible. Handheld is less predictable. IBIS has often issues with corners when shooting with wide lenses and is much less effective with close subjects.

 

[algrove]

For an upcoming trip I am trying to decide if I take my RRS 3 series with A/S head or the MUCH smaller and lighter carbon fiber PD.
If I know I will have wind I most always favor the RRS since the bottom section is larger than the top section of the PD tripod. BUT the weight and size saving is significant especially since it is lots of air/rental car/remote hiking kind of trip. Decisions, decisions. Leaning toward lighter right now.

 

[Michael Erlewine]

I have a closet full of tripods, mostly RSS and Gitzo, however the HEIPE W28S at 3 LBS is the best thought-out carbon-fiber tripod I have ever used and it only is $429. Unless there is serious wind I can take this anywhere and feel like I am carrying next to nothing. It is Swiss-Arca mount and very easy to go from vertical to horozontal.

 

[Pieter 12]

Barry Thornton published this test back in the day, with a 35mm camera:

 

[Geoff]

A big fan of heavy solid, but sometimes for travel, use the small 15" (closed) smaller legged tripod. If you don't extend fully, say only two or three legs, not all, it can work. Typically used only for wide lenses, not long tele shots.
On another note, once was using the 250/300mm lens on MFDB to photo the moon (a long way away), and needed not only sturdy tripod but extra sturdy mounting... as normally strong wasn't good enough. Surprising, but true....

 

[Paratom]

I dont know but besides another framing, the handhold also looks "different", was it the same light and processing?
Which lens was this (the bokeh looks a little busy to me)

 

[Paratom]

the 35mm film test - which focal length? 1/125 ist that fast and did it have IS? certainly did have ois

 

[bags]

I believe in tripods, too: I keep 2 plus a monopod in the trunk of my car. But then again, I shoot > 95% film.

I consider a digital camera just the first line of picture making (true, of course, for film cameras as well, but to a lesser degree) and post-processing is the other half. I suspect that most of us, with even a moderate amount of skill in (say) Photoshop, could make the photos render pretty similarly.

Since carrying a tripod can be (literally) a real pain and since post-processing, with its AI improving with each release, is so robust, a holistic approach to buying a camera with purportedly 10 stops of IS might be to consider it just a better "window to the world" for Photoshop (or LR, C1, etc). Kinda takes away a lot of the joy of ownership, but I had a mentor in digital photography who kept telling me that a digital camera is just a tool for getting the image into post-processing.

 

[Michael Erlewine]

I have been doing close-up photography since 1956. I have an extensive Nikon system, and have had hundreds of lenses, many APO, which I most care about. However, in all those years with the Nikon I have had to endlessly fiddle in post processing to get the color right. Yes, I can do it, but what pain. I have over a million photos. SInce I got into the Hasselblad X21, the X2D, and now the X2D2.... I no longer have to screw around with the color. Yes I process it in Photoshop, but no struggle. Hasselblad X2D2 XCD 20-35 E lens.

 

[Pieter 12]

the 35mm film test - which focal length? 1/125 ist that fast and did it have IS? certainly did have ois

This was before any kind of image stabilization.

Paraphrasing from Thornton's book, Edge of Darkness: It was shot with a Pentax LX and 50mm Pentax f1.7, 30 inches from the subject, on Kodak T-Max 100 film. Neutral density filters were used for some of the shots to enable them to be made from 1 second at f22 through 1/500 at f2 to give equal exposure to each frame. Although the exposure was equal for each negative, they were taken at different apertures, so the lens performance varies from frame to frame to frame. Small apertures show diffraction (the star around the highlight). Wide open tends to show a halo around the highlight because of uncorrected lens aberrations and extra flare. Exposures taken at the same speed and aperture are directly comparable as shown in the illustration. The conclusion is that hand-held at higher shutter speeds is better than slower speeds with a flimsy tripod.