[GryphonPhotoCat]

I've found carrying my camera attached to a heavy monopod even when not grounding the monopod I feel as though the added mass helps me stabilize the camera better.

I'm wondering if adding a large cheese plate to the base of my camera with some added weight would have the same effect... or if investing in some of the small cages used by video shooters would help with this as well.

amazon.com : SMALLRIG Professional Camera Cage for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony, for Panasonic GH3/GH4 with Battery Grip-1750 : Camera & Photo?tag=pentaxforums-20&

Plus I have this idea of using the frame to mount two speed lights with little soft boxes attached for flower macro photography.

This may be a silly question but thought I'd ask it anyway.

I'm happy to carry a lot of weight. I find a heavy camera feels comfortable in my hands when I'm trying to shoot - though now and then I wish it was lighter when I'm carrying it and not shooting - but you can't have it both ways.

Also wondering if adding this extra mass would help at all with shutter shake or am I just wasting my time with that endeavor and should just make sure I use the right techniques to limit mirror or shutter shake?

let me know what ya'll think.

Thanks,

Gryphon

[bkpix]

I've actually played around experimentally with this question.

After I bought a Canon 1Ds a few years back I noticed that the massive body seemed to be far more stable for hand holding than my smaller Canon or Pentax bodies.

So I tried bolting a 5-pound weight plate (as in weight lifting) to the tripod mount on the bottom of a couple small bodies.

To tell you the truth, I couldn't determine that it made any difference at all.

I suspect a greater factor is how well the mirror and shutter mechanism are damped in a body. The 1Ds is probably pretty well designed in that regard.

That said, I didn't shoot a whole lot of photos, and might have learned more if I had.

[biz-engineer]

Of course more mass require more energy to be moved. For a constant energy of shake applied, double the mass and the motion amount is halved.
But when the camera is hand held, it's not sure if the amount of shake applied remain constant. And more weight means more effort to carry the camera system.

---------- Post added 26-04-19 at 06:17 ----------

I see a difference with and without the battery grip loaded wit 6 x AA to a K1 , K1 II.

---------- Post added 26-04-19 at 06:22 ----------

I suspect a greater factor is how well the mirror and shutter mechanism are damped in a body. The 1Ds is probably pretty well designed in that regard.

Very likely better designed for robustness / stability given the size of the body, although the 1Ds resolves 11 Mpixels + OAA, is a lot less demanding in terms of shutter vibration.

[kypfer]

I feel it's a combination of both weight and balance. Too heavy, my old Tamron 200-500mm for example, and "the shakes" set in too early to be practical when holding it up to my eye. The focus control is too far down the lens.
Unbalanced, my Samyang 800mm mirror for example, and I find it very difficult to hold the silly thing still. There's nowhere to put my left hand that doesn't risk knocking it out of focus.
Well balanced, my Sigma 150-500mm, I can brace my left elbow against my chest and hold it by the tripod mount. Any fine focus, a/f over-ride when shooting through foliage, for example, can be achieved with my thumb.
I'm not sure about extra stability when adding a battery grip, for example. I feel any improvement here may be simply due to the better grip one can achieve on the bigger assembly.


YMMV

---

Last edited by kypfer; 04-25-2019 at 10:25 PM. Reason: spelling

[Dartmoor Dave]

Adding mass definitely helps to reduce the blurring from shutter shock in my K-S1, which is a very lightweight little camera without much internal damping. A big heavy zoom results in less blur than my usual small prime lenses, and mounting a hefty flash unit onto the hot shoe helps even more. But those aren't really practical options for my usual usage of that particular camera as small snapshooter, so I compromise by keeping my heaviest old tripod mount plate permanently attached. Even that much extra mass helps to damp the vibrations when the shutter fires (although actually I think it's the mirror flipping that's the real problem). The tripod plate doesn't cure the problem completely, but it's definitely better than nothing.

Would that help with an already fairly hefty camera like the K-1? I'm not so sure, but it'd be the first thing I'd try.

[Trickortreat]

Dont worry about that. The effects of extra weight are minimal if any...
And if you overdo it it can lead to opposite effect - hand shake because of overburden.
If you need steady use a tripod or a monopod or just put your elbows or shoulder against a hard surface while holding the camera.
Far better than extra weight...

[biz-engineer]

The main reason we shouldn't use our own body for shake reduction is because our bodies move at the pace of our heart rate and breath. Getting the camera in physical contact with our bodies and it is move likely to move, even when holding our breath. It's easy to evidence heart rate motion on a camera: switch on LV , zoom in 4 x or 8 x and see how much the image moves every time our heart push blood in our bodies.

[Trickortreat]

Just use the technique that sniper shooters use - breath in, breath out wait a few seconds and then fire the shot. With a little practice youll be able to know when your heart beats or not and place the shot between the beats.
Takes discipline and practice tho...
Beats the extra weight any time...

[LensBeginner]

Dont worry about that. The effects of extra weight are minimal if any...
And if you overdo it it can lead to opposite effect - hand shake because of overburden.
If you need steady use a tripod or a monopod or just put your elbows or shoulder against a hard surface while holding the camera.
Far better than extra weight...

This.
I've personally had the best results with 1. light cameras 2. without mirror 3. held with the neckstrap taut against the back of my neck (as opposed to held against che cheekbone, elbows flush with the ribcage, as strange as this might seem)

[aslyfox]

. . . I'm happy to carry a lot of weight. I find a heavy camera feels comfortable in my hands when I'm trying to shoot - though now and then I wish it was lighter when I'm carrying it and not shooting - but you can't have it both ways. . . .

Gryphon

I carry my camera with an over the shoulder/cross body sling system along with an attached hand grip so it hangs on my right hand side

from time to time I vary how I hold the camera ( K 3 or K 3 II ) and the attached lens to help take the weight from my neck and shoulder by holding the hand grip as well, to holding the lens and camera cradled in the crook of the off side elbow to resting on my shoulder with it controlled by my hand in the hand grip

temporarily shifting the method of carry helps me to bear the weight when I have a big heavy lens ( D FA *70-200mm F2.8 of D FA 150-400mm ) on the camera

___________________________

Just use the technique that sniper shooters use - breath in, breath out wait a few seconds and then fire the shot. With a little practice youll be able to know when your heart beats or not and place the shot between the beats.
Takes discipline and practice tho...
Beats the extra weight any time...

I agree with Trickortreat

I have found that this article has some useful tips

Shooting Long Exposures Hand-Held - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

[MarkJerling]

I've found carrying my camera attached to a heavy monopod even when not grounding the monopod I feel as though the added mass helps me stabilize the camera better.

I'm wondering if adding a large cheese plate to the base of my camera with some added weight would have the same effect... or if investing in some of the small cages used by video shooters would help with this as well.

amazon.com : SMALLRIG Professional Camera Cage for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony, for Panasonic GH3/GH4 with Battery Grip-1750 : Camera & Photo?tag=pentaxforums-20&

Plus I have this idea of using the frame to mount two speed lights with little soft boxes attached for flower macro photography.

This may be a silly question but thought I'd ask it anyway.

I'm happy to carry a lot of weight. I find a heavy camera feels comfortable in my hands when I'm trying to shoot - though now and then I wish it was lighter when I'm carrying it and not shooting - but you can't have it both ways.

Also wondering if adding this extra mass would help at all with shutter shake or am I just wasting my time with that endeavor and should just make sure I use the right techniques to limit mirror or shutter shake?

let me know what ya'll think.

Thanks,

Gryphon

I would imagine it would depend on where that extra mass was applied. Using the steadicam principle that would mean you'd need to add mass in excess of that of the camera, offset from the bottom of the camera. As that's hardly practical, I would think that any benefit will be offset by the cumbersome nature of the attachment and mass.

[beholder3]

I've found carrying my camera attached to a heavy monopod even when not grounding the monopod I feel as though the added mass helps me stabilize the camera better.

Heavy mass will reduce a certain shake by its mass inertia - if you caryy the stuff for a short while and your muscles are "fresh".

If you have to handhold the heavy equipment too long this will be offset and reversed by extra shake by muscle fatigue. Go handhold a K1 + grip + DFA* 70-200 + AF540 flash in trigger ready position for 8 hours...

[Lowell Goudge]

I think there are a lot of things discussed here, but not necessarily in the correct light.

With respect to weight, there are several aspects to consider
- a heavier weight changes (reduces) the frequency of vibration
- the weight, depending on where it is placed, changes the balance of the lens / camera system,
- it can also either help or not with pitch and yaw motions as a function of where, the centre of mass is relative to where you are holding the camera. (See the observation by the OP, about a mono pod even if not in contact with the ground)
- the additional mass also helps with reducing the peak movements due to camera induced vibration, I.e. from the mirror and shutter actions.

There were also comments about it using your own body to reduce shake, and whether this helps or hinders, in fact it does both. If you use your body, the general technique, Arm’s against rib cage and view finder to your eye (cheek against body) one hand on the body one at the end of the lens, is the recommended technique, and works very well, yes you have your respiration rate and pulse have impacts but these are always below 1-2 Hz so unless you are shooting a really slow shutter speed, do not significantly impact the shot, and as some have highlighted, you can control breathing to even reduce this.

The main benefit of using the body as a brace is not simply adding mass, but the technique takes away several degrees of freedom for the camera. Using a neck strap and holding the camera away from the face may work, and could be the only way to use a mirror less camera with no viewfinder. It is the same idea about the “string pods”. It removes degrees of freedom of the camera movement.

I personally do not agree with holding a camera away from the human body, with arms extended because your ability to control a weight with arms extended is reduced, this idea actually contradicts the best techniques, and is one where increased weight, actually is detrimental

Excess weight is also detrimental if, as some point out, it exceeds your strength and endurance limits. You can’t hold 5 pounds indefinitely especially in shooting position, so there may be a short term gain, if you shoot promptly before you get tired, but if you hold the pose too long the shakes begin

[Roadboat24]

Weight does help dampen movement, But as biz-engineer pointed out, Our body has more of an effect. Breathing, pulse, involuntary muscle movements. If you have ever shot long distance with a firearm you can see that even your pulse, in the tip of your finger on the trigger, can be seen in the rifle scope.
I would say, that a heavy camera does make you more inclined to put the thing on a tripod though....

[Dartmoor Dave]

I think there are a lot of things discussed here, but not necessarily in the correct light. With respect to weight, there are several aspects to consider- a heavier weight changes (reduces) the frequency of vibration

So could it be that adding weight reduces the blurring from shutter shock that I get in the 1/60 to 1/125 range on my K-S1 by lowering the vibration frequency to where it only becomes visible at slower shutter speeds than that? Sounds plausible to me.

The rest of the thread seems to be suggestions about holding the camera steady to avoid motion blur, which is a completely different issue than the blurring caused by shutter shock.