Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on January 19, 2021, 01:29:33 pm
-
There have been posts on this forum about the weight of kit and what to take when hiking. Many long term photographers viewed tripods as part of their kit, but are they as important as perhaps they were? Obviously they are needed for long exposures and may be for shorter ones if the camera or lens does not have image stabilisation. Over time, though, technology improvements have greatly changed the way cameras and lenses work. Sensors have become much better and a high proportion of images are taken with digital sensors rather than film. Image stabilisation (IS) has had a big effect and many would not now buy a camera and lens system that does not have IS. Higher ISO performance has improved, so that shortening an exposure by raising the ISO is an option.
A minimum of 24 or 26 megapixel sensors are now the norm (apart from micro 4/3). With a 24MP sensor (6000 x 4000) one can print up to 20 inches on the long side at 300dpi. If my memory is right this statement is based on the resolution of the eye at a viewing distance of 10 inches, but how many would routinely look at a 20 inch print from 10 inches? I have read of people writing that 240 dpi is ok for a print of that size. At 240 dpi a 6000 pixel image on the long side will print up to 25 inches. Not everyone prints A1 size (33" on the one side). If one is producing a book then I guess that it will be rare that an image will be bigger than 12 inches on the long side. At 300dpi only 3600 pixels along that side are needed, i.e. for a 3x2 image that is less than 9MP for the image, so that gives plenty of cropping potential with a 24MP image.
All of this makes me wonder why a tripod is needed (as opposed to desired) much of the time. Indeed I rarely use a tripod these days, even for macros that are not super high magnification, say a bee on a flower, given how good AF can be now. Ok, if you manual focus or want to stack, then a tripod is needed, but how necessary is it for images many keen photographers take?
Obviously, lockdown has given me time to ponder and ruminate!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
As you say, the requirement for a tripod is reduced by modern technology. However, I find that a tripod changes/supports my ability to evaluate an image and frame it before taking the picture. It is harder for me to evaluate the edges and details of the composition when I am holding the camera in my hands. In a sense the tripod forces me to be more concerned about the details of my image.
-
Phones are so good who needs cameras? AI is so good who needs togs?
And so it goes on...
-
Depends on what you’re doing. If careful landscape, product, etc., work, a tripod is still critical for exact framing and repeatability for exposure blending, etc. I don’t think technology will change that.
For “off hand” shooting, I agree. Technology has been a game changer. I can shoot my GFX 100 with the 250mm tele, hand held, no problem at all. Unheard of prior to the body ergonomics and IBIS.
UPDATE: I just returned from a 5 day trip to the Eastern Sierra. GFX w/ IBIS. I have changed my mind from the above. All the images I shot “off hand” though sharp as a tack w/ IBIS, were inferior to the images I shot w/ my RRS and Arca Cube. Why? First, because I had to think about my composition when using the tripod. Second, I took the time to refine the composition with the Cube. I honestly don’t think I could have achieved the same thing (I didn’t, in fact) shooing off hand - and - most of the off hand shots are already in the trash can.
Rand
-
Not so much for the sharpness aspect but the tripod holds the camera so I don't have to. All set up, framed, etc. Waiting for right light, I don't want to be holding camera. Panoramas are also more precise.
Larry
-
Not so much for the sharpness aspect but the tripod holds the camera so I don't have to. All set up, framed, etc. Waiting for right light, I don't want to be holding camera. Panoramas are also more precise.
Larry
Precisely. Setup the composition. Focus the image and ensure everything you want in focus is in focus by zooming into the image and moving around. Then sit back and wait for the light. When the light happens, you are all set rather than scrambling while hand holding the camera.
Most of my landscape images are taken during the sweet hours ( meaning dim light ) and most of my images are taken stopped down...thus long exposures --> never leave home without ah tripod.
-
I was chatting with a photographer (not to be named) last night, who complained to me about my lack of positive feedback for his hand-held shots. I wanted to say they were "OK," but I controlled myself and used the word "nice," and then under duress, I said they were a bit "mushy" or something like that. He said that I should should discount or modify my comments for hand-held images. My comment: "Not going to happen." No discounts. I always use a tripod, if I can. And when I look at your handheld photos, that is exactly what I see. LOL. I don't care what you do, but don't ask me to handicap you, please.
-
Even with a tripod vibrations are going to affect the image, on the cement floor, on the ground or sand near the ocean, in a city, in the forest or anywhere you are.
Checking for vibrations from different sources can be done with a telephoto lens and LV at 10x magnification, try to keep the image from vibrating its very difficult.
The wider the lens the less the issues, the lower mpx, the faster the SS. But be sure vibrations are there.
Never leave home without a tripod unless your taking snapshots. ;)
-
Never leave home without a tripod unless your taking snapshots. ;)
Exactly.
-
Never leave home without a tripod unless your taking snapshots. ;)
In many destinations I wouldn't even think of using a tripod for street/environment work, in fact in Morocco I'd probably be stoned for so doing.
I wouldn't even think of not using a tripod for architectural or table top work in any destination, unless perhaps I was stoned.
Horses...
-
I have 5 different tripods from a few cm to 12m... all have their purpose.
Really like putting the camera on the tripod and be free to look around and decide.
-
I'm eagerly awaiting the launch of image-stabilization technology that will allow me to shoot a focus stack without a tripod.
Azalea Flower (about 3.5 cm in diameter)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49875748883_af16b93ddd_c_d.jpg)
-
I was chatting with a photographer (not to be named) last night, who complained to me about my lack of positive feedback for his hand-held shots. I wanted to say they were "OK," but I controlled myself and used the word "nice," and then under duress, I said they were a bit "mushy" or something like that. He said that I should should discount or modify my comments for hand-held images. My comment: "Not going to happen." No discounts. I always use a tripod, if I can. And when I look at your handheld photos, that is exactly what I see. LOL. I don't care what you do, but don't ask me to handicap you, please.
+1. makes you look and think harder. (this from someone who likes both tripod and handheld shooting)
-
+1. makes you look and think harder. (this from someone who likes both tripod and handheld shooting)
I like both too, just depends on what I am shooting. However, IF I can use a tripod, I will. I don't see the point of bragging about not using a tripod and showing inferior examples, where a tripod would have very much improved them. I just bought the new Nikon Z7 II with handheld in mind.
-
I think Gitzo is releasing a sky hook in 2059?
-
Someone said, "the sharpest lens is tripod." I believe Ansel said use the biggest tripod you can carry (though I suspect someone else was usually carrying it). Historically there were two genres, one, large cameras, eg view cameras, which were always on a tripod, and "miniature" cameras, eg 35mm, which could be hand held.
Technology and time have clearly blurred these seeming necessities but I'm with Michael Erlewine, I use a tripod unless there's some major reason I should/can not. I use it essentially 100% in the landscape and zero% when taking photos of my infant grandchildren.
Careful composition, more contemplative imaging really requires the use of a tripod, at least for me.
-
Someone said, "the sharpest lens is tripod." I believe Ansel said use the biggest tripod you can carry (though I suspect someone else was usually carrying it). Historically there were two genres, one, large cameras, eg view cameras, which were always on a tripod, and "miniature" cameras, eg 35mm, which could be hand held.
Technology and time have clearly blurred these seeming necessities but I'm with Michael Erlewine, I use a tripod unless there's some major reason I should/can not. I use it essentially 100% in the landscape and zero% when taking photos of my infant grandchildren.
Careful composition, more contemplative imaging really requires the use of a tripod, at least for me.
Hear, Hear! Exactly my thoughts. Tripod and NiKon S 58mm f/0.95
-
You can do without a tripod - in theory. It just requires a lot more storage space and a lot more computing power at the other end, as well as a camera with more pixels than you actually need and a subject far enough away that minor movements while hand-holding won't result in any meaningful parallax error.
A single shot taken handheld at 4s, ISO 100 is going to be blurry. But a single shot taken at 1/30s ISO 12800 could well be sharp, depending on focal length and camera- or lens-based IS. Take 128 such frames in quick succession and each individual frame is likely to be sharp, although framed slightly differently. Stack 128 1/30s, ISO 12800 frames together, align them and average them, and you get the equivalent of a 4s, ISO 100 exposure. You'll have to crop slightly, since the framing will be slightly different between each frame and you'll almost certainly have to straighten the final output, but, if your camera already has more than enough megapixels, you may be able to afford to.
You could do this using individual frames shot at high speed, but a much better bet, if this method of tripod replacement were to become practical in the future, would be to use an ultra-high-resolution (higher than 8k) video format.
Of course, this is very taxing on your storage space and computing resources. A 4s exposure requires 128 frames if you can keep each individual frame sharp at 1/30. But, if you need 1/500s for a sharp image, you'll need 2048 frames at ISO 204800 for a 4s exposure. And, of course, if you want a 30s, or even multi-minute exposure handheld, you're looking at tens or hundreds of thousands of frames. Not impossible - computing power and storage capacity increase every year - but certainly slow and inconvenient.
This is just an extension of what I already do when wind or focal length mean that even a tripod can't make a shot sharp (I've even had that happen at 1/400s, when shooting telephotos on tripods in windy conditions), or when doing long exposures of scenes with some moving elements I'd like to keep still (e.g. keeping the leaves and branches still while allowing motion blur in the waterfall), and what astrophotographers do to account for multi-hour exposures. Of course, all these things are already done on tripods, so you're usually talking 10-20 (for landscapes) to several hundred (astrophotography) frames. To use the same technique to replace a tripod would likely require another ten years of growth in computing power and storage space, assuming no growth in final image resolution - for now, carrying a tripod is just going to be more convenient.
-
You can do without a tripod - in theory. It just requires a lot more storage space and a lot more computing power at the other end, as well as a camera with more pixels than you actually need and a subject far enough away that minor movements while hand-holding won't result in any meaningful parallax error.
A single shot taken handheld at 4s, ISO 100 is going to be blurry. But a single shot taken at 1/30s ISO 12800 could well be sharp, depending on focal length and camera- or lens-based IS. Take 128 such frames in quick succession and each individual frame is likely to be sharp, although framed slightly differently. Stack 128 1/30s, ISO 12800 frames together, align them and average them, and you get the equivalent of a 4s, ISO 100 exposure. You'll have to crop slightly, since the framing will be slightly different between each frame and you'll almost certainly have to straighten the final output, but, if your camera already has more than enough megapixels, you may be able to afford to.
You could do this using individual frames shot at high speed, but a much better bet, if this method of tripod replacement were to become practical in the future, would be to use an ultra-high-resolution (higher than 8k) video format.
Of course, this is very taxing on your storage space and computing resources. A 4s exposure requires 128 frames if you can keep each individual frame sharp at 1/30. But, if you need 1/500s for a sharp image, you'll need 2048 frames at ISO 204800 for a 4s exposure. And, of course, if you want a 30s, or even multi-minute exposure handheld, you're looking at tens or hundreds of thousands of frames. Not impossible - computing power and storage capacity increase every year - but certainly slow and inconvenient.
This is just an extension of what I already do when wind or focal length mean that even a tripod can't make a shot sharp (I've even had that happen at 1/400s, when shooting telephotos on tripods in windy conditions), or when doing long exposures of scenes with some moving elements I'd like to keep still (e.g. keeping the leaves and branches still while allowing motion blur in the waterfall), and what astrophotographers do to account for multi-hour exposures. Of course, all these things are already done on tripods, so you're usually talking 10-20 (for landscapes) to several hundred (astrophotography) frames. To use the same technique to replace a tripod would likely require another ten years of growth in computing power and storage space, assuming no growth in final image resolution - for now, carrying a tripod is just going to be more convenient.
I do this with the Sony apps with my A7R2 and in theory the images should look the same but in practice they are not. A 4 second exposure captures the scene fully during those 4 specific seconds. 128 images takes much longer to capture and each image just captures a split second and when combined I feel the resulting image is not as "smooth" as the 4 second exposure...especially when there is moving water like a creek flowing in the image.
-
I have gone through a sinusoidal thinking tripodwise.
At some point I wouldn't shoot any image without one... then the rate of images shot without one decreased, then increased, the decreased again...
Now I own 5 top notch tripods, all RRS (including their newest travel tripod wonder btw), and I use them a fair share, but I am not anymore of the thinking "no way to get tack sharp images without a tripod" because the reality is that I have thousands of examples of critically sharp images shot without tripod with the best lenses there are, going from 14mm to 500mm.
To me, in the end, the tripod helps:
- with all the multi-shot techniques including panorama stiching, DoF stacking and HDR (although I rarely use HDR since the D3x),
- when light is low enough that I cannot reach the desired combination of speed and aperture without raising the ISO above the level I am comfortable with for a given camera
- for product shots type of settings, where the shooting environment (lights,...) is set up once to capture different objects in sequence,
- with landscape when changing light dictates the right timing for a given composition and more generally speaking when time driven events change the content of an image whose borders are critically important
- with heavier cameras such as the Phase One XF or 4x5, although I do shoot the XF hand held in the studio with strobes (its focus and recompose function works much better than that of the H6D-100c one btw)
- with cameras requiring special manipulations such a tech camera for which one needs to capture a white card shot with movements
Outside these scenarios I am more than happy to enjoy the freedom of photography hand held and the results rarely visually suffer from hand shake. Just like for brands, there is really no reason to lock oneself into a single option. They all offer some upsides and downsides.
A monopod is also a tool I use sometimes as it's an interesting midway point between the stable but constrained tripod and the free handheld shooting. It's of course the case for super tele usage, but there was a time when I shot my H6D-100c on a monopod for "street shooting". And it worked pretty well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do this with the Sony apps with my A7R2 and in theory the images should look the same but in practice they are not. A 4 second exposure captures the scene fully during those 4 specific seconds. 128 images takes much longer to capture and each image just captures a split second and when combined I feel the resulting image is not as "smooth" as the 4 second exposure...especially when there is moving water like a creek flowing in the image.
Works out smooth enough for me. This is about 4 minutes of exposure, to blur the clouds (each individual exposure would have blurred the water anyway).
-
Works out smooth enough for me. This is about 4 minutes of exposure, to blur the clouds (each individual exposure would have blurred the water anyway).
I'm talking about a running creek that is splashing water...not water that just lies there. With moving / splashing water, I find the 128 image combined still exhibits individual water splashes artifacts which are not there if one does a 4 second single image.
-
I'm talking about a running creek that is splashing water...not water that just lies there. With moving / splashing water, I find the 128 image combined still exhibits individual water splashes artifacts which are not there if one does a 4 second single image.
Make one mean stack and one median stack, then manually blend them. Usually, the median stack will eliminate these artifacts, while the mean stack does a better job of eliminating choppiness in smoother, continuous movement.
-
Make one mean stack and one median stack, then manually blend them. Usually, the median stack will eliminate these artifacts, while the mean stack does a better job of eliminating choppiness in smoother, continuous movement.
Or just use a tripod.
-
Or just use a tripod.
Not always the better option when used alone.
I use both at the same time.
A tripod stops most camera shake and allows for longer exposures. But it doesn't prevent moving subjects from leaving a smear along their path (e.g. people or birds), stop leaves and grass from moving during a long exposure, or stop unwelcome waves or ripples ruining a reflection in a lake or river. And, sometimes, it doesn't even adequately stop camera shake, particularly in windy conditions or at longer focal lengths. And it certainly doesn't help much when you're shooting from a helicopter or balloon, or trying to shoot a low-light landscape with a drone. And, of course, some locations I want to shoot from just don't allow tripods and may have nowhere to attach a clamp.
With a multiple exposure technique used on top of a tripod, I can eliminate most of these problems with just a few exposures and some masking work in postproduction.
-
Tripods let you separate framing the shot from taking the shot.
Tripods let you take the "same shot" over and over again, whether it is for focus or exposure stacking or just because you want to.
Tripods let you take photos that cannot survive the shake of a human hand.
-
Ever seen any good photos taken without a tripod? I have seen many thousands.
Ever seen any good photos taken with a tripod? I have seen many thousands.