Yesteryear vs the Present: In the old days when camera bodies were all metal, the bodies were more resonant. They would ring like a bell or vibrate. Today's camera are built...

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

In the old days when camera bodies were all metal, the bodies were more resonant. They would ring like a bell or vibrate. Today's camera are built differently and not as resonant. So is shutter or camera vibration still a really big issue? In the recent tripod thread I saw a few mentioned dampening vibration with carbon fiber. How valid is this today?

I see posts about prime is sharper than zooms. There are some really sharp zooms out there today which are better than the zooms of the past.

I see posts about not using hi ISO or going over a certain ISO. Today's cameras perform much better at higher ISO's.

On the other hand if you're a purist, I guess these issues can be very significant or if you still have older equipment. It also depends on how much of a purist one is. If that's the case, a purist should always be on a carbon fiber tripod, only use prime lenses, and never go past ISO 800 etc. I can understand striving for the best result but how far can one go and how practical is it?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe primes are sharper than zooms in general. However, zooms have been catching up recently.
There are engineering compromises in both primes (to keep sharpness over the focusing range) and zooms (to keep sharpness over both the focusing and the focal length range). Since there are more compromises in zoom lenses I infer that the zooms will generally be behind the primes in sharpness (of course there will be exceptions).
Current zoom (and prime) lenses have better resolution than most sensors so which one is sharper is a moot point.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Stan, I've seen a demonstration of how much vibration occurs when the shutter is tripped on a tripod mounted modern digital. It's considerable. I now use a small sandbag on top of my camera to dampen the vibration even more. The only one I don't worry about that much is my view camera.
--Bob

skingfong wrote:

In the old days when camera bodies were all metal,... (show quote)

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Cameras without slapping mirrors (in other words, non-DSLR's) generally do very little vibrating. Also true with traditional film cameras... SLR vs. rangefinder cameras, for example.

I find your concept of "purist" quite strange. Especially that a purist only uses tripods made of carbon fiber!

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

OMG, in 10 years I have never had an image ruined by mirror vibration on a tripod mounted camera. If you are concerned, that's what the Mirror Up function is all about. I have had low light or action shots ruined by too low of an ISO; you can always fix noise, you can't fix blur.

bgrn Loc: Pleasant Grove UT

If I am in a situation where vibration on a tripod is critical and I have the time to set up, I will usually use mirror lock up and my trigger. I’m open to other ideas.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

OMG, in 10 years I have never had an image ruined by mirror vibration on a tripod mounted camera. If you are concerned, that's what the Mirror Up function is all about. I have had low light or action shots ruined by too low of an ISO; you can always fix noise, you can't fix blur.

Well said.

Regarding primes, as good as modern zooms are (and some are excellent), the best primes are still visually sharper than the best zooms. I recently posted a sharpness test using a Canon 135 f2L (20 year old design) +. 1.4x Canon MKII extender providing ~195mm vs a Canon 70-200 f2.8L at the same FL, and the prime, even with an extender, was noticeably sharper.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

You can own the most expensive camera and lens combo available and it will only produce images as good as the photographer using the equipment. Folks put way to much emphasis on the equipment. Take any picture with any camera at ISO 800 blow it up to 200% on your huge computer screen and it will look like crap. That is not how you measure the cameras abilities. When will people learn it's the subject plus technique that will blow any camera lens combo out of the water. Yes if you can afford good equipment, go ahead and purchase, but this will Not guarantee by any means a sharp, noiseless, quality photograph. Learn the art of photography it will win hands down time and time again.....

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

skingfong wrote:

In the old days when camera bodies were all metal,... (show quote)

So, we are all "purists" to some degree--when we can afford to be.
I don't understand the question.

Bill_de Loc: US

Kmgw9v wrote:

So, we are all "purists" to some degree--when we can afford to be.
I don't understand the question.

Me thinks it is intended to be a discussion starter more than a question looking for an answer.

Otherwise my answer is a definite maybe.

--

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Bill_de wrote:

Me thinks it is intended to be a discussion starter more than a question looking for an answer.

Otherwise my answer is a definite maybe.

--

I use that same answer quite often.

sxrich

I no longer even think about or worry about prime vrs. zoom sharpness, or vibration or anything like that anymore. i just posted some street shots taken with a supposedly very average kit zoom lens. Could the images be sharper, sure with better camera and glass. I guess my thoughts are now about the lighting, composition, impact and visualizing the final image. Would some images be sharper with a different lens, i guess but people don't pixel peep. I shoot events and families and similar stuff, head shots. We all have favorite lenses and cameras but i control my aperture and shutter speed well enough to not have issues. i can hand hold my 70-200 2.8 turning off vr and shoot a play or musical from 50-75 ft and get a tack sharp shot and see the actors eyelashes and eye color. My point is that equipment is really good now, low noise cameras, really sharp zooms or at least sharp enough to see a pimple at 100 ft. Everything out now can produce a stellar image in the right hands. Just my humble opinion.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

skingfong wrote:

In the old days when camera bodies were all metal, the bodies were more resonant. They would ring like a bell or vibrate.

May I assume that you never used a Leicaflex SL or SL2?

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

rmalarz wrote:

Stan, I've seen a demonstration of how much vibration occurs when the shutter is tripped on a tripod mounted modern digital. It's considerable. I now use a small sandbag on top of my camera to dampen the vibration even more. The only one I don't worry about that much is my view camera.
--Bob

I've experimented with using live view "mirror lockup" and weighing down the tripod. I've never thought about putting the weight the weight on the camera which seems to make a lot of sense vs weighing down the tripod.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

Bill_de wrote:

Me thinks it is intended to be a discussion starter more than a question looking for an answer.

Otherwise my answer is a definite maybe.

--

Yes, you are correct. Everyone has an answer or opinion. I'm interested to see what other think.