The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Using CFV 100 handheld

davidsuchoff

New member
For those who have the new CFV 100, does the lack of IBIS limit handheld use? My concern is that the high megapixel sensor is unforgiving and will show the slightest movement.
 
The camera would be more usable handheld if it had IBIS. The threshold question for any particular person is whether it is usable enough or not.
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
For those who have the new CFV 100, does the lack of IBIS limit handheld use? My concern is that the high megapixel sensor is unforgiving and will show the slightest movement.
It all depends on the conditions, available light, focal length and how many Red Bulls you drank in the morning.

I have shot my XT handheld where tripods were prohibited and the results were great. I was actually surprised the images came out that good. I did have too bump the ISO to 250 and shot at 1/400 sec, but that was the difference between getting the shot or not, and I am very pleased with it.
 

anyone

Well-known member
I don’t have the CFV100 yet but tried it with the GFX100s by deactivating IBIS and just using the display. In normal daylight I am able to keep the camera steady. I may observe a slight loss of detail due to microshake, but to my eyes the images are very usable.

Since I like adapted lenses, I also tried to shoot the camera with ES only without the tripod. That failed, I always moved my hands just enough to get some warping into the images.
 

wattsy

Active member
The practicalities of shooting handheld depends on the level of light you typically photograph in and the focal length of the lenses you typically will want to use. Sharpness acceptability is also enlargement related just as it has always been. If you don't plan to print any larger (or view on a larger screen), the enlargement of a 33mm x 44mm sensor image is the same, irrespective of how many pixels it has (I know, in practice, we enlarge higher MP images more because we inspect the images at 100% on a screen).

FWIW I often use my 907x CFV 50c with 45P lens handheld without any problems in light where I can get a 1/250 shutter speed or so. The CFV 100c will not change that equation much (the linear resolution increase going from 50MP to 100MP is, I think, 1.4). Don't forget that the pixel density of the 100MP chip is similar (or the same) to the chip in the Leica M11 and users routinely take photographs with that camera handheld. The 907x is of course mirrorless and the leaf shutter action in the XCD lenses is very light – nothing like the shutters of old in a DSLR. If I choose to use a tripod in good light, I do so mostly because I prefer to have a more considered control over composition rather than because I think the tripod is necessary to avoid camera shake.
 
Last edited:

Abstraction

Well-known member
I would approach it, the following way: 100mp is in the 4x5 film territory. The rule of thumb for 35mm had been 1/focal length. For 4x5, I would use the 1/ 3x(focal length). That would be my starting point. You may wind up way below that speed depending on how steady you are, but that formula may provide you the threshold.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Pixel-level sharpness isn't necessary for all images. This was with a Cambo, IQ140 (only 40 MP), SK35XL, 1/15 sec, hand-held.


Yes, I made a version with Charon rowing out of the fog...
:)
Matt
 
Last edited:

Jager

Member
When I picked up the original CFV-50c some years back, and paired it with my CM-500C, I quickly discovered that the only way I could obtain optimum results was to put it on a tripod and use very careful technique - mirror pre-release and careful triggering of the shutter. I could get nice images handheld, but inevitably those handheld images lost at least a tiny bit of what that lovely sensor could give.

Much as I always loved handholding my Hassy with 120 film, I so loved the files from the CFV-50c that that camera became mostly tripod-bound.

Fast forward to a week ago and FedEx drops off the box containing the 907x / CFV-100c, along with the XCD 45p. My first explorations have that lovely new camera on a tripod. I bought it, after all, expecting it to largely emulate my older CM-500C, but in a smaller form factor and with greater resolution. I had zero expectation of using it handheld.

On a walkabout a couple days in, curious, I took a couple of frames handheld, right next to the same scenes shot upon the tripod I carried. When I reviewed those files later, I was pleasantly surprised to find no real discernible difference. That gave me the confidence to take the camera out sans tripod altogether, something I would never consider with my V-system Hassy and a digital back.

What I can say is, for me, using the XCD 45p - whose leaf shutter has, as @wattsy notes above, a very gentle release - in good light... handholding the 907x / CFV-100c is a dead cinch. That might change with longer focal lengths. And surely would change with the back on a V-System body. But for wide-to-normal XCD lenses in good light I think IBIS is a total non-issue.

I tried street shooting - the kind of thing I'd normally use a Leica M for - with my CM-500c and its CFV-50c a few times back in the day. A few nice images. But, broadly, that was a fail.

The new 907x / CFV-100c appears to have redressed all that, lack of IBIS notwithstanding.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Have had good experience handholding the 907/50C II with 45 or 65mm lenses . Very capable in museum context to capture art work. Oddly (and against common logic), have even used electronic shutter sometimes for quiet. Not all shots are keepers, but typically taking two quick ones gets one good one. Below is one with leaf shutter, and crop. The pencil lines are perfectly crisp, although the post shows some compression degrading.
 

Attachments

davidsuchoff

New member
Thank you all for your thoughtful replies and examples! This certainly gives me more confidence. Obviously, we each hold and use cameras differently and our degree of shake is individual (and Red Bull-dependent!!).
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I sent a PM to david, but reproducing here and expanding a bit for the (hopeful) benefit of the thread.

You're right to have some concern over hand holding a 100mp camera. A lot depends on which system you would be using - on a Hasselblad V series body or with the 907x? And then which lens. Just now, shooting on the 907x with the CFV 100c and the 55mm V lens, I found that my hit rate was good down to somewhere in the 1/30th to 1/45th of a second range, if I was careful. At 1/20th of a second, I felt like I was exceeding my ability to capture a tack sharp image. So just slightly better than the traditional guideline of 1 over the focal length as a shutter speed (1/55th of a second for a 55mm lens) for 35mm cameras. I was able to improve on that just a bit. A larger, heavier lens like the 80mm or the 120mm might be a different story.

It was mentioned that the resolution of 100mp approaches 4x5, but there are other factors in addition to the scale of viewing that come into play. A 907x/CFV 100c is a mirrorless system with leaf shutter lenses, no focal plane shutter. Less opportunity for vibration, hence I was able to effectively capture at least at a quality relative to shooting a 35mm camera, in terms of the shutter speed to lens ratio. And my hand holding skills, if you will, are pretty average. I imagine a different result there than with say a Hasselblad 500mm series with a CFV 100c.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

jduncan

Active member
For those who have the new CFV 100, does the lack of IBIS limit handheld use? My concern is that the high-megapixel sensor is unforgiving and will show the slightest movement.
Hi,

I hope I don't sound harsh, English is not my first language, and sometimes is difficult to be emphatic without sounding harsh.

I feel people are letting themselves be manipulated by petty people with a destructive agenda (not talking about the poster).

If it was true that one can't shoot handheld a 100MP camera, people would not be able to do so with many Phase One cameras, including some that have 150 megapixels.

People will not have been able to shoot the H6D-100c handheld either. Suddenly shutting MF without stabilization is a major issue.

Will it be nice to have in-body stabilization? yes, but I understand that is not easy within the target price and the need to align the sensor properly for the use with film cameras.

Body stabilization was a complex issue with 35mm DSLRs. Some eventually solved it, but it was not easy. Maybe, if MF survives, the next generation back will have it.

Nobody can say that I have not been a harsh critic of Hasselblad when I believe they deserved it. I have criticized them directly to their faces. I have underscored in this forum many things like "the lack of a remote trigger on a camera with not even a semblance of modern AF".

In the last few years, they improved the AF, introduced new lenses, innovated with built-in storage (MF) added advanced stabilization to the X, double the max shutter speed, all while keeping the prices within a semblance of reason. A massive inversion on a niche product.

The destructive people who are trying to sabotage the product don't even want to sell, they just want others to fail. It's such nonsense.

We should not let ourselves be manipulated into an ant mill.

The camera can shoot up 1/2000, paraphrasing Steve Hendrix: shoot the reciprocal and then add some, if that doesn't cut it, and you can't add light and you shot MF Hasselblad, Phase One, or Leaf, you are already used to carrying a tripod.

Best regards.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Sharpness is a perceptual quality. Resolution does not affect the ability to handhold a camera and shoot a sharp image. The tolerances are the same for all cameras regardless of pixel resolution. The output is related to how the final image is viewed, not on whether you can see something at 100% monitor view. 100% monitor view is not an actual viewing condition any viewer will have. If you shoot on a 24MP camera and, for example, the 16x20 print appears sharp, it would also have appeared sharp with a 100MP camera, even if at 100% monitor view, the sharpness of the 100MP was not "perfect."
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Sharpness is a perceptual quality. Resolution does not affect the ability to handhold a camera and shoot a sharp image. The tolerances are the same for all cameras regardless of pixel resolution. The output is related to how the final image is viewed, not on whether you can see something at 100% monitor view. 100% monitor view is not an actual viewing condition any viewer will have. If you shoot on a 24MP camera and, for example, the 16x20 print appears sharp, it would also have appeared sharp with a 100MP camera, even if at 100% monitor view, the sharpness of the 100MP was not "perfect."
I always look at Rembrandts through a 40x loupe. I got tired of fighting with the security guards, so I got a 717 GigaPixel scan of the The Night Watch.
:cool:
 

PeterA

Well-known member
but so many threads and comments on 'sharpness of lenses' on here....

please explain?
 

daz7

Active member
People get obsessed with the lens sharpness, while for most photos it becomes a moot point as soon as you print it.
Most reasonably good lenses provide enough sharpness for print even when looking sub-optimal on a computer screen.
I think that people easily get attached to what they see while processing their shots and do not put enough attention to composition, mood and artistic expression on the final product which almost always is a print or a miniature 600x800px web picture.
 

jrp

Member
I suppose the underlying question is “if you are going to the trouble of running a higher resolution camera, why would you not want to get that resolution out of it?” Yes, there is the MF look, but there is also the narrow depth of field available with lenses available only on more popular formats.

I suppose that the other answer is that you want to use the camera that you have with you.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I suppose the underlying question is “if you are going to the trouble of running a higher resolution camera, why would you not want to get that resolution out of it?” Yes, there is the MF look, but there is also the narrow depth of field available with lenses available only on more popular formats.

I suppose that the other answer is that you want to use the camera that you have with you.
If I had a car that could go 0-60 in 4 seconds, it doesn't mean that I would have to floor it every time I accelerated. Nice to have, when merging onto a highway from a stop-sign, though (the Merritt Parkway .. grrrr).

And the X2D only comes in one flavor. If I want IBIS, I can't choose 24MP or 50MP. Only 100MP.
 
Last edited:

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I have a high respect for the varied creativity of photographers, but in general, most photographers that photograph off a tripod prefer to have the ability to capture hand held to be as high as possible. An image looks slightly blurred or it doesn't, and this matters a great deal, even at modest output sizes. Of course, it varies greatly from photographer to photographer, from situation to situation. How skilled are you at hand holding? And so a given camera is good down to 1/30th for you, but maybe only 1/45th for someone else.

Regardless of this, different cameras and lenses produce different tolerances. It's relevant to compare the 907x/CFV 100c to the IBIS'd X2D, as they may be considered by the same type of photographer, and for similar situations. A Phase One IQ4 150/XF system would have a very different tolerance. I could never shoot a Schneider 55mm lens on the XF hand held at 1/30th of a second without vibration artifacts. So it is certainly a very relevant question.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 
Last edited:
Top