Tripod Users Vs. Non-Tripod Users

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Yuck

Well in that case, there's the sharpness factor. Use of a tripod is supposed to allow you to go up one more print size, and the same idea with mirror lockup when using long exposures.

When using my telephoto, tripod is basically required as I have no IS.

The modern tools may exist, but to those of us who cannot afford IS lenses, they are not practical and the trusty old tripods are.

---

Body stabilization?

And, I agree with Loupey. When I'm in the field, I carry a body around my neck with a lens attached, one other lens in my field bag, a spare battery, lens cloth, spare CF card, and a bottle of water. I can cover a lot of ground, go places unrestricted by load size (like straight up a limestone bluff) and not worry about damaging too much gear if I tumble down. I'd carry a P&S "girls night out" camera, if I could take the same photos with it - the DSLR is a grudging acceptance that image quality only slightly trumps portability.

I have a decent tripod but, like many here, find it just too cumbersome to lug around. So, it tends to get used for still lifes in my kitchen etc.

However, one of the best things I ever bought was a proper camera bean bag thing (it has a tripod bush built in). It goes abroad with me on my foreign jaunts - you can usually find a wall or something to put it on :) I would recommend one as an alternative to a tripod in many situations - much more portable.

Cheers
Mike

i should clarify the reason i don't regulary use a tripod isn't because its hard to carry around (if im out hiking its usually strapped to my bad anyways) etc. but simply because its much more complicated/ time to use. have to unstrap it from my bag, set it up, screw on bottom plate (usually), do it all over again when you want to switch view angle on subject a tad, etc. plus alot of my shots it doesn't get low enough for.


i do need to invest in a bean bag though, maybe if i get the 70-200, then ill see a reason for it (i have no long lenses right now).

I am never without my tripod. Lately I am finding myself using it less than I used to, but it's always attached to my backpack. I find in some situations IS is pretty nice and helpful, but I like to have the tripod pretty close. I mostly shoot landscape with the occasional wildlife shot. I use it for HDR work, I shoot at the edge of light quite a bit, essential there. My mindset is still with film, high ISO=bad, so although I am learning to use higher ISOs it's still in my habit pattern to use the lowest possible.

I guess I still believe in John Shaw's thought on tripods...shoot everything with one. It makes you slow down, take in the scene, look for the best composition, think about your settings, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racedraper

I know on Nikon you have to turn off the VR or it will mess up the lens

---

The newer Nikon VR lenses are designed to work on monopods. I don't think you'll actually hurt the lens if VR is used while on a tripod, but it can cause a loss of sharpness because it's trying to correct vibration that isn't there. Personally, I never found any use for a monopod.

I have one VR lens, an 18-200. That one lens is all I bring if I'm shooting casually where the choice before probably would have been to leave the camera behind. In those cases I don't carry anything else (battery grip has two batteries in it, one 4gb card is more than enough, built-in flash if I really need it). If I'm shooting seriously, I always bring the tripod and a bubble level. Taking a few seconds to set it up is well worth the sharpness to me, but I'm not usually shooting things that move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

I don't think you'll actually hurt the lens if VR is used while on a tripod, but it can cause a loss of sharpness because it's trying to correct vibration that isn't there.

---

I tried this with an IS lens that I had rented, just to see what would happen. :) It didn't hurt the lens at all, but the image quality was pretty bad. I was thinking that a slight breeze that was blowing would cause enough movement to make the IS work, even on the tripod. I was wrong. :)

I've fought a tripod for some time now. #1 because mostly I shoot sports so there was never a need. Now I find myself doing a lot of macro and longer shutter speeds. I finally bought a really nice one and glad I did. It was great for my hike last month on Mt. Rainier. I don't think I could have got a lot of the shots I did without it.

I'd call it a love hate relationship. I'd rather not use it because it is a pita, but I liking the results with my macros especially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JSPhoto

Yes it works.

If your going to use a tripod or monopod in a public setting you better have really good insutance to cover your gear and liability if someone gets hurt or your gear hits the ground. This is also true for sideline shooters as well, some kid gets speared by your tripod/monopod your going to get sued, which is one of the reasons I don't use one, and if you can't handhold your gear do you really belong on the sidelines to begin with? I don't think so, but that my feelings on it, maybe I just see too many people who shouldn't be on the sidelines, and gotten tangled up in tripods and monopods used by people who have no clue what they are doing or where they are I am a bit biased against their use. Especially one woman who has a tiny P&S and big ole tripod, she tripped mr twice in one half one night :(

JS

---

My first sports photography lesson from you was to lose the monopod. I did and glad so many times on the field. When I've had my close calls I've always thanked god you told me to buck up and get used to the weight. When I got hit last season (and it was bad) the first and only thing I thought of is what if I had a monopod in that big mess. I was wrapped up with so many players I can't imagine what I would have done to them or myself. I was able to tuck my gear in and go with the hit. It probably saved my gear too.

I am tripod user, and will always have a tripod with me. I like having very sharp focused photos. To make it easy to use, I have a quick release head and use kirk brackets.

I've walked the streets of Paris, Buenos Aires, and everywhere in between. I am not a believer that digital image stabilization is better than a solid tripod.

Never-the-less, I had to invest a ton of dough to get a carbon tripod and top of the line head to make the weight possible.

Loren

btw..hello!!

hehehe, I remember back then, and the first game or two you didn't make it too far without the monopod due to the weight :eek: and something about your arms hurting :D and you were a tad bit :mad2: at me :D I think. In the end though I think it worked out though..... now we gotta work on those sideline skills and staying alert and getting out of the way quicker :yikes: , we don't want any repeats of last year! :nonod: and want a nice SAFE season for you and all the sports shooters :yesnod: and no more injuries :nono:

Ok, I'm getting tired and a bit carried away here...... :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin: but there won't be any :17: this year :rolleyes: lol

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JETA

My first sports photography lesson from you was to lose the monopod. I did and glad so many times on the field. When I've had my close calls I've always thanked god you told me to buck up and get used to the weight. When I got hit last season (and it was bad) the first and only thing I thought of is what if I had a monopod in that big mess. I was wrapped up with so many players I can't imagine what I would have done to them or myself. I was able to tuck my gear in and go with the hit. It probably saved my gear too.

---

I like real tripods with quick release heads and push button everythings, made by Italians with funny names ... but I hate my Gitzo monopod.

New green gaffer tape went on my lightweight Slik tripod the other day. The tripod looks very smart and well camouflaged again. The tripod fell off the Castle (in the Budawangs). It fell over 600 ft straight down and was hardly broken ... but that was 20 years ago now, we had both forgotten about that, until tonight.

This Emu put its life on the line when it got between me and my best bush buddy.


http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...disfaraway.png


I like my tripods they make my $100 cameras worth every single penny. When I pay for line pairs per mm, I want every single pair. Hand holding this shot above, shows that I'm with the birds. I just don't have the skills needed to be realy sharp, handholding. My tripod has all the skills but it is under the grass trees ... and probably laughing at me..

Warren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racingpinarello

To make it easy to use, I have a quick release head and use kirk brackets..........Never-the-less, I had to invest a ton of dough to get a carbon tripod and top of the line head to make the weight possible.

---

I guess I failed to mention I'm in the carbon fiber tripod club too. The Arca Swiss ball head and all of the custom plates just make it so quick and easy to use that there's hardly an excuse not to. This stuff just doesn't go obselete unlike the cameras it supports. The AS head I have might not be the "flavor of the week" anymore (check out the RRS head!) but I have no reason to replace it.

Good to see you back, Loren. I haven't been shooting much this summer - my new road bike has taken over. Not quite Pinarello level but maybe some day, The "engine" still needs some work at this point!

Frankly I'm happy so many people use tripods. In my field, it allows me to shoot rings around the masses (I live in an urban area with lots of photogs and not so much wildlife) and get the shots others can't :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JSPhoto

hehehe, I remember back then, and the first game or two you didn't make it too far without the monopod due to the weight :eek: and something about your arms hurting :D and you were a tad bit :mad2: at me :D I think. In the end though I think it worked out though..... now we gotta work on those sideline skills and staying alert and getting out of the way quicker :yikes: , we don't want any repeats of last year! :nonod: and want a nice SAFE season for you and all the sports shooters :yesnod: and no more injuries :nono:

Ok, I'm getting tired and a bit carried away here...... :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin: but there won't be any :17: this year :rolleyes: lol

JS

---

We do not want repeats from last year. LOL I'm a weeeeeee bit jumpy now on the sidelines. I was running scared at the All-State game no matter how hard I tried not to.

From the bottom of my heart though..... All of the help you've given me has been worth it's weight in gold. I can never say thank you enough!

I think if you want to have a really, really sharp photo, you need to have a tripod or some way to fix the position of your camera and lens. Not that you cannot have a sharp photo shooting hand-held, but a tripod gives you a better chance to get one.

You also have to look at what you use, what you shoot, and how strong you are and in what lighting conditions. If you are shooting with a 600 f4 prime lens, how long can you hand hold it? The Nikkon's one weighs 11 lbs mind you. Nikon 200-400 is 7.2 lbs in weight. Both the Canon 100-400 or 400 f5.6 weigh only a couple of pounds, as far as I know. No big deal there :p If you are shooting macro and you don't mind a shallow depth of field, then may be a tripod is also not needed :)

I've been wondering if sport photos don't require the kind of sharpness that bird photos do, especially for small birds. Although both may be shooting with lenses from 400mm to 600mm, the sport shooter seems to just use a monopod while a bird photogs likely would use them on a tripod. Then again, the bird photog may be using the lens with a 2x tele on the 600 mm lens. Can you get a sharp photo with that set up without a tripod?

As for myself, I use a tripod for macro and when I really want a sharp photo, or whenever the camera is already on a tripod :) I usually shoot bird-in-flight handheld even with a 6-7 lbs lens.

The only photos I print for display are landscape; therefore, I believe a tripod is necessary. The use of a tripod allows me to use a lower ISO setting with a larger F-stop, thus allowing for sharper photos with no noise (or grain). Also, all of my printed photo shots are taken either at sunrise, early morning, late evening or sunset; therefore, using a lower ISO and a larger F-stop relates to a very slow shutter speed. I also use a remote cord and mirror lockup to limit the smallest vibration from affecting the photo.

As for vibration reduction or image stabilization lenses, they help tremendously for hand held photos, but if a camera is mounted to a solid tripod, VR (or IS) is not required. The tripod should be stabilizing the shot as much as VR (or IS) would.

Therefore, I carry a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, with a Markins ballhead, and all my long lenses and camera bodies have either Kirk or RRS plates. There is really not that much delay in setting up a tripod and sliding the camera/lens into the ball head and taking a photo.

I have seen identical photos taken of the same subject at the same time, and those taken on a tripod have always appeared sharper when blown up. Also, from what I have read seen and heard, most professional landscape and wildlife photographers use tripods. I’m sure they do not use a tripod for the fun of carrying it around; there must be something to the use of a tripod that helps to obtain sharper photos.

Can’t speak for sports photographers, but I do see most of them with at least monopods at the side of professional football games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JETA

We do not want repeats from last year. LOL I'm a weeeeeee bit jumpy now on the sidelines. I was running scared at the All-State game no matter how hard I tried not to.

From the bottom of my heart though..... All of the help you've given me has been worth it's weight in gold. I can never say thank you enough!

---

I know the feeling JETA, I'm still nervous at one track, I guess having a car wind up in the catch fence right where your shooting will do that though, and yeah, I do get a bit over cautious at times on the sidelines too, not sure which is worse, your broken leg or me with three rotator cuff tears..... this is a tough business either way, unfortunately most do not realize it :mad: and don't take the precautions they should.

BTW, you know I am glad to help ya any time :thumbsup:

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f5fstop

... As for vibration reduction or image stabilization lenses, they help tremendously for hand held photos, but if a camera is mounted to a solid tripod, VR (or IS) is not required. The tripod should be stabilizing the shot as much as VR (or IS) would...

---

Had I not used any IS lenses, I would have agreed with you. But my problem in the past (pre-digital, pre-IS) is that there was no easy way to shoot some things with a tripod - at least highly active/live subjects. I've shot 35mm film and medium format macros and telephotos extensively and always used tripods with mirror lock-up and remote cable release whenever possible. But the issues were always how to carry a stout enough 'pod and/or how to shoot, with the mirror locked up, a moving subject especially on a breezy day (which is about 99% of the time for real-world macros). Oh I know it's possible. But the success ratio can be really low.

As I stated before, tripods will always have their place. Mine is in the back of my truck :p It is always with me but I almost never use it. My point is that there are no right answer to suit everyone all the time. But I'm open to the fact that not using a tripod can often be "right" too :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f5fstop

...Also, from what I have read seen and heard, most professional landscape and wildlife photographers use tripods. I’m sure they do not use a tripod for the fun of carrying it around; there must be something to the use of a tripod that helps to obtain sharper photos.

---

Perhaps they think so too and so perpetuate that belief like these guys :wink:

I sold my tripod head yesterday. After mucking about with it and my 100-400 I decided that it was just not the right fit. I plan to get a ball head in the next few weeks, so we shall see if that makes the difference.

Until then I am sans tripod by default. Guess I will have to continue perfecting my HH technique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racingpinarello

I am tripod user, and will always have a tripod with me. I like having very sharp focused photos. To make it easy to use, I have a quick release head and use kirk brackets.

I've walked the streets of Paris, Buenos Aires, and everywhere in between. I am not a believer that digital image stabilization is better than a solid tripod.

Never-the-less, I had to invest a ton of dough to get a carbon tripod and top of the line head to make the weight possible.

Loren

btw..hello!!

---

Yeah, but don't you shoot large format and a camera phone? :)


So I guess it would be more accurate if we posted what we shoot camera-wise and what we shoot subject-wise.

I'm still using the 20d, with a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8, and I photograph a lot of kids. There is no way a tripod would work for me. Even when I photograph seniors, or even, gasp!, grown ups, the tripod is intimidating. Shooting without makes things more casual.

However, I am learning Escrima (which is fighting with sticks) and I think the tripod would be a handy subsititute.

Here a tripod, there a tripod, everywhere a tripod. To trip over, hold up the pole that holds up the corner of a temporary screen backdrop etc. Oh, yeah, there are camera tripods too!

IS, VR, OS, all have a role and I don't want to be without it, but . . .

The first time you use a Canon 400/2.8 or 600/2.8 with or without IS you'll beg for at least a monopod. Or after you've whacked yourself in the head a time or two you take any suggestion offered.
IS on these lenses (and others) will also make you sometimes question it worth "while you are using it". I'm one of those who 'see' the correction occuring while panning or moving the lens quickly with IS on a long lens. I've gotten used to it, but is it ever annoying for awhile.

The Canon 70-200-IS f/4 'L' may be the best zoom I've ever used. I can easily get 4 or more additional stops of very good quality images, handheld. It is at least one and maybe two stops better under many circumstances than the 2.8 variety (its the mass and bulk of the lens that causes this) of the same lens.

Tripods are a necessity for many types of photography and with digital HDR you have no alternative. Good studio portraits (not fashion or glamor) come from a solidly anchored camera. Low light photography is far more successful with a solid tripod. Get your sweaty, shaking, heartbeat filled hand off the camera!!

O.K. so %85 of the time I shoot without a tripod. But if I am using a big lens (any f/2.8 150 mm or longer) I've got a monopod slung over my shoulder at least.

With LF you must have a tripod. MF varies in need, still as many types as not of work require a solid support for qood quality.

One consideration for that inconvenience factor, get the right tripod for you. It should open and close quickly and easily for your application! It needs a quick release camera mount unless it is a studio only camera (and then I have to have a quick plate for other reasons). It must be solid. The right tripod for a long/big heavy lens may not be the best choice for a regular camera. The wooden tripods (or quads/4-legs) I have for view cameras certainly are not the right things for taking most places and they are not quickies.

Not every photographer is going to be best served by a ball-mount head. If you are shooting from a grandstand or bleachers a fluid mount video/panning head may be far better and more effective.

The tripod is still a basic necessity in the kit. Just leave it in the trunk, someday you'll be glad you had it there and not tucked away at home in a closet.

I still carry a tripod everywhere I go but with the IS on the E3 I seldom use it. In fact I can't remember if the E3 has ever even been on a tripod. I did some with the 510 and almost always used one with the E-500.

Well I do have to admit that I do leave the tripod at home from time to time. Just like others it all depends on what I am going to shoot. If I am going to the city, Chicago, then I would take it with me. For family gatherings I might leave it at home, just for the simple fact that I know I will be either walking around with the camera or someone is going to ask to take a few shots with my camera. Other times if I am just going over someones house and take the camera then the tripod will be in the trunk of the car just in case.

Walking around Chicago with the tripod is kind of funny since I have a backpack and the tripod is supported on the side of it.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adina

Yeah, but don't you shoot large format and a camera phone? :)

---

My camera phone looks awesome on my tripod!!! :)

Currently, due to the expense of having a daughter I no longer have any camera equipment except for my F6 and a 24mm and a 28-70mm lens.

When I went to Argentina, I would shoot my F5 on mirror lock up with a 24mm prime lens. I have been able to make 20x30 prints. My Hawaii shots are from my F6 and the same 24mm lens. I sometimes shoot with a 4-15second exposure so a tripod is must.

My LF and MF equipment required tripods, but I have even put my Yashica T4 on a tripod.

Loren

Some thing to think about on this subject. You have to be comfortable using your tripod and be able to set it up as quick as you can. You should be able to set it up in the dark. Last Dec. when I shot with my brother I was fighting the tripod getting it set up. He made the comment " Need a little field practice setting it up" At that point I hadn't used it that often. Last month shooting with OT, when he handed his tripod to me it to me my brother's comment came running through my head, in the dark and a tripod I wasn't familiar with was set up and shooting in no time.
For night shooting being able to set up in the dark is essential .
Enough rambling from me.
Jimmy B