Tripods Bad for Quality?

[GB1]

I have no idea where to put this in the forum, so since it affects image quality ..
Gb

------------------

Japanese Scientists Say Tripods Increase Camera Shake
via Wired: Gadget Lab by Charlie Sorrel on 4/14/09

Scientists at the Nishi Lab of the University of Electrocommunications have developed a tool which measures camera shake. The surprise is that putting the camera on a tripod can actually make things worse.

The measurements were designed to check the effects of mirror slap and shutter vibration in SLR cameras. Vibration caused by the mirror is well known — as the mirror flips up to let light onto the sensor of film, it shakes the camera and — according to the Nishi Lab — lowers resolution by up to 75%. Higher-end cameras combat this with mirror lock-up modes which get the mirror out of the way and let the camera settle down before shooting.

A bigger surprise was the effect of the shutter vibration, which affects the picture even when the mirror is locked up. And even more surprising were finding that a cheap tripod actually adds to the problem, vibrating along with the shutter and mirror to blur an image. The tripod used wasn’t specified (other than the weight which was “under 1.5Kg”, or 3.3lbs). The problem was seen with image stabilization and without, and was actually worse with the feature switched on (which is why, unless there is a “tripod mode”, most manufacturers advise switching the function off when not shooting handheld).

The measurements, which are taken by examining an LCD display, tell us the amount and direction of the shake, which could actually be compensated for. We wouldn’t be surprised to see this popping up in top-of-the-range cameras in the next year or so. Until then, make sure you buy a decent tripod.

[SmartWombat]

This is a NSS, not news at all, is Gadget Lab staffed by muppets?

a cheap tripod actually adds to the problem, vibrating along with the shutter and mirror to blur an image

Well No S**t Sherlock !

make sure you buy a decent tripod.

DUH !

[PRB]

Thank you Paul --- you said exactly what I was thinking.

[SmartWombat]

Can you tell I had a bad day ?

[GB1]

No, you took it out of context. If you read the article you will find him saying more than that.

"And even more surprising were finding that a cheap tripod actually adds to the problem, vibrating along with the shutter and mirror to blur an image"

What they are apparently finding is cheap tripods add to the problem, not like they just don't work as well as good ones. That's what I'm getting out of it, anyway.

Gb

[Ultra Magnus]

So, what happened to the old adage that any tripod is better than no tripod?

Chalk one up in the corner for micro 4/3's type systems of mirror-less electronic shutter cameras...

BM

[MB1]

Sounds like straight BS to me.

If they had identified which exact tripod or tripod design they tested with and compared to other tripods and published the complete results then maybe I could accept this but a straight indictement of "Cheap" tripods without defining the word sounds like it came from a study funded by one of the "Expensive" tripod companies.

[SmartWombat]

"What they are apparently finding is cheap tripods add to the problem"
Which is what I quoted !

But only if they happen to resonate with your camera/lens combination at the shutter speed you're using.
Any tripod can do that, it won't take much resonance to ruin a long lens shot.
And because of the nature of resonance, once you hit it even on an expensive tripod damping it is difficult.
It's only the higher mass of an expensive tripod that prevents the oscillation.
Tie a sandbag to the centre column of a cheap tripod and you should get the damping you need ... as long as it doesn't collapse under the weight !

It will depend how you set up the tripod too.
If you don't fold out the legs completely, and so they are not locked to the top of the tripod, then the tripod has moving joints, not a solid support.
You can make that mistake with any tripod and it really makes this gross simplification of the situation a joke.

I could set up my Manfrotto so that it supported my camera worse than a cheap tripod.
I'd have to do it deliberately

[GB1]

So, what happened to the old adage that any tripod is better than no tripod?

BM

I would have thought that this is the case too... I think they found that it's not so

But then again, the article is somewhat ambiguous.

[GB1]

Here's more info:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090413/168663/

[OldClicker]

"I could set up my Manfrotto so that it supported my camera worse than a cheap tripod.
I'd have to do it deliberately."

Remember that there are those that think that Manfrotto is a cheap tripod. - TF

[SmartWombat]

Well, compared to a £9.99 tripod it's expensive
I agree, compared to a video tripod that could barely carry, it's cheap
I've been considering carrying a sandbag with me, so I can weigh it down in high wind.

[Ultra Magnus]

imo, as an owner of a few "cheap" tripods (walmart/target specials), most of the flex is in the head, rather than the legs, but that's not saying the legs are in any way rigid.

so, weighting down the center column, while damping the vibration in the legs, won't do anything for stiffening the camera to tripod interface. Each one that I've owned were pan head styles, and had the ability to flip to portrait orientation. They didn't have anything that resembled a positive style of lock for either position.

When I'd set up the camera, I'd use the 10 sec timer, and could see the camera oscillate after pressing the shutter. I could only hope that 10 seconds was enough time for it to settle down. At the time, I used it mainly for sunset/sunrise shots w/ an all in one, electronic shutter type camera, so no mechanical movements took place other than the lens stopping down on shutter release. My results were good, and at wide angles, vibration induced blur was minimized.

I haven't really used a tripod much since I've had a dslr. Still hunting for the opportune moment that I find a good deal while I simultaneously have any extra money.

BM

[jetrim]

While the article (however ambiguous) probably makes sense, it's hard for me to justify dropping $600+ on a high end carbon fiber tripod when not making any money off it. As a guy using probably one of the oldest DSLRs of anyone on the forum, with the cheapest lenses currently available, my $59.95 manfrotto tripod is probably the least of my worries

[Frog]

Maybe my circuits don't work as well any more but I don't get the part that the tripod makes it worse What was it like without a tripod? You still have mirror and shutter vibration and then can add human vibration to the mix.
Of course some tripods are better than others and we already know that we need to turn off vr or IS.

[GB1]

.. I don't get the part that the tripod makes it worse ...

My sediments exactly. I wonder if something was lost in the Japanese -> English translation, or if the writer changed just a word or two by mistake that completely distorted the findings?

For the record, I'm now on my 3rd or 4th Slik 212 tripod. @ about $100 and 5-6 lbs, you can carry it for miles through the forest. I've never seen the big draw in buying a ultra expensive tripod like the kind you see in fancy studios.

[Frog]

Yeah, I guess the bad part is taking the picture unless we can go back to the old cameras where you held a piece of black board in front of the lens and then took it away long enough to expose the film, there's going to be some vibration. I doubt I could get anything except long exposures then.

[PRB]

And, I'm trying to sell my Gitzo Mk2 Mountaineer 1228 Carbon Fiber tripod --- because, even though its carbon fiber, its too stinkin' heavy!!! Its not nearly as heavy as my husband's Bogen/Manfrotto tripod, but, for me, I just can't tote around the Gitzo anymore. Any takers?

[Frog]

I'll give you $10.00 ?

[tayl0124]

So, what happened to the old adage that any tripod is better than no tripod?

Chalk one up in the corner for micro 4/3's type systems of mirror-less electronic shutter cameras...

BM

Or learning to use mirror lockup to help in this situation.


And is this the right section of the forum to be discussing this?

[GB1]

Shawn - It's probably the wrong forum, but I have no idea what the right one is (?)

Anyway.. let's all get good tripods.

[Dylan8i]

from what i read, "The resolution of an SLR camera was substantially reduced to 1/4 or lower by the mirror shock" occurs on a "good" - ie heavy tripod. and that a lighter tripod is EVEN WORSE.

[Frog]

Probably should be in the viewfinder forum.

[PRB]

I'll give you $10.00 ?

Sorry Frog --- no low ball responses are being considered :wink5: I worked too hard for too many years to afford good equipment and, I ruined my health in doing so. Now, I'm at a point in my life when I can't afford to be ripped off, ya know....

Thank you for at least offering something though---, you're a sweetheart.

My Best to You,
Penny

[Frog]

I just hope you knew it was a tease Penny.