Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: Harry on December 22, 2017, 10:49:39 am
-
I met a photographer recently who uses a Canon 5ds for landscapes. She says that the camera can not be used without a tripod because its super resolution reveals even the slightest hand movement.
Given her comment, one might ask about the high megapixel SONY and Nikon cameras. At over 40 megapixels would they not also demand a tripod?
Do their new image stabilizations and autofocus technologies make it possible to hand hold these cameras without blur?
-
I manage to shoot mostly handheld with my D800
-
I tend to agree with her. My recent trip, where I was shooting handheld all the time (from a ship, moving cars, walking), just proved that.
Now, tripod is not the only solution. Increasing the shutter speed is the other. It used to be in the film days that it would be enough to use a reciprocal of the lens focal length (e.g., 1/125s for 100 mm to 135mm lenses). If you wanted to be on the safe side, you'd double that. For high megapixel cameras, you might need to go 3-4 times the reciprocal. Obviously, image stabilization might help and let you get away with less than that, but only for really stationary subjects.
-
I manage to shoot mostly handheld with my D800
Hehe... but of course, the real question is: what are the results? Acceptable for only web use, I'd venture.
-
Can a high MP camera be effectively used without a tripod? Of course. Many photographers do and do quite nicely
Is it recommended for some types of photography to use a tripod with a high MP camera? Yes, if the situation permits, many times it is better to use a tripod.
Old shaky guys like me have used tripods even with lower MP cameras.
To each his own.
But to claim that "that the camera can not be used without a tripod" is incorrect. In her opinion, the 5ds should not be used for landscape without a tripod, but that's her opinion and there is a difference between can not be used and should be used.
I would just nod my head and accept her opinion and then continue doing what you feel is appropriate for your type and style of photography.
-
Now, tripod is not the only solution. Increasing the shutter speed is the other. It used to be in the film days that it would be enough to use a reciprocal of the lens focal length (e.g., 1/125s for 100 mm to 135mm lenses). If you wanted to be on the safe side, you'd double that. For high megapixel cameras, you might need to go 3-4 times the reciprocal. Obviously, image stabilization might help and let you get away with less than that, but only for really stationary subjects.
I second this! When I first got my D800E, I was disappointed with some of the images because many were somewhat soft. Now I find myself pushing the shutter as fast as possible by adjusting ISO, even ON a tripod! In my opinion, having a sharp, slightly grainy image is a fair compromise. One reason I am considering the D850 is its higher ISO performance.
-
If you're peeping pixels or making huge prints this stuff comes into play. Otherwise not.
-Dave-
-
... Otherwise not.
Otherwise there is no point in 5Ds.
-
Otherwise there is no point in 5Ds.
Yup (not counting status signalling/posturing and the like).
-Dave-
-
My experience with my A7rii is that lenses, focus ability, and stability are far more critical than with my older, lower MP bodies or with film if you're looking for peak sharpness and making full use of the resolution (large prints or 1:1 digital images). Stablised bodies and lenses help, but a more stable platform (even a basic tripod) definitely improves things.
You can definitely shoot without, and I do all the time, but make direct comparisons between tripod and hand held of the same thing at the same settings and you'll see a difference.
-
Personally i have the 5Ds and agree with the original comment.
My lower MP medium format gives a much better image if I have it with me.
The only reason I would not use a tripod is if I didn't have one.
Increasing the shutter speed is usually not an option if you want to shoot at say f11.
Half the posts these days are about how to get longer shutter speeds.
-
I shoot my 645D almost exclusively on a tripod but it's kind of heavy and has no stabilization.
My K-1 (same sensor as D800/810) does very well handheld but also has a great IBIS system and I'm also willing to bump ISO on that camera to get a faster shutter when appropriate.
But regardless of which camera, if I'm shooting something like golden hour landscapes I always use a tripod and keep ISO low.
-
I look for every advantage when shooting and a tripod helps me keep my ISO low as well as keeping the camera level so that I don't have to sacrifice pixels during processing because the "unlevel" image needs to be rotated and subsequently re-cropped. But, to each his/her own.
-
My experience with my A7rii is that lenses, focus ability, and stability are far more critical than with my older, lower MP bodies or with film if you're looking for peak sharpness and making full use of the resolution (large prints or 1:1 digital images). Stablised bodies and lenses help, but a more stable platform (even a basic tripod) definitely improves things.
You can definitely shoot without, and I do all the time, but make direct comparisons between tripod and hand held of the same thing at the same settings and you'll see a difference.
I agree with Phil here.
Using a tripod and a remote release will give better results than handheld, even with the various forms of lens and body stabilisation available today.
Even using a mechanical shutter can cause vibration and degradation of image quality depending on the shutter speed used.
That said, excellent results are possible with good handheld technique.
Some people do struggle to hold a camera still when shooting.
Your friend is a female and the truth is that some women do struggle to hold camera/lens combinations still when shooting. I would say that her comments exactly reflect her experiences and her pursuit of image quality necessitates the use of a tripod and remote release for any kind of image quality.
On a larger note there is something of an urban legend that digital imaging makes getting excellent images easier. In certain situations this is true. However, high resolution sensors and the newer lenses developed to take advantage of those sensors has created, IMHO anyway, a welcome contradiction to the legend. Very close attention to detail and any very good camera technique are required to get the best out modern photographic equipment.
Largely, we need to think how our medium format brothers used to think when shooting. It appeared that the size and weight of those camera/lens combinations necessitated using camera supports however, really, the resolution of those cameras was always the more important reason for using a big and steady tripod. (Of course a big heavy camera does require a larger more robust tripod than a small light camera.)
The fact that we now have such huge resolution available in much smaller form factors may have fooled certain people into thinking that hand-holding these cameras will always work. It doesn't! The issue was never the weight of the camera rather it is the resolution that limits the situations where hand-holding will give acceptable results.
Again, some people will still get good results handholding when others cannot, but the limits remain.
There is no point in shooting with high resolution cameras unless one is planning to exploit that resolution. If all one is planing to do is post low resolution images to the web or on social media then get yourself a 12 MP camera. 40 or 50 MP cameras were developed for those people who want to print large - very large.
In addition, these cameras are also not primarily developed as sports/action/wildlife cameras where hand-holding is common and often the best camera support one can use is usually a monopod. In, general, high resolution cameras are developed for a slower, more contemplative, shooting style where the use of a tripod and remote release makes sense. Obviously, if the light and the type of shot desired allows a high shutter speed relative to the focal length employed then good results can still be attained by shooting handheld. Nonetheless, visibly better results will be attained in nearly all circumstances, using the same camera settings, if a tripod and remote release are employed.
The question that every individual needs to ask is how good is good enough. Your friend clearly has high standards and for her can only be attained by using a tripod, and probably a remote release as well. Your standards may be different...
Nonetheless, in a lot of situations, I would be advising a tripod and remote release, and even a large heavy sandbag draped over one's camera and lens to reduce vibration from any cause. Attention to good technique, whether handheld or not, is absolutely key to modern high-resolution digital shooting...
Tony Jay
-
While image stabilized lenses help in a pinch, I think I use a tripod 95% of the time with my 36mp Nikon D800E. There very clearly is a difference.
Kent in SD
-
Almost never use a tripod, but then I have IBIS and I'm often using 3200+ ISO. It depends what you are shooting.
Of course if you use the 50MPx as a point & pray and then crop it down to 8Mpx, yes. If you want to print at a scale that you would never have done with a lower-res camera, yes. But the same size print, same situation, no.
-
With every more mega pixel camera i use i see more the nuances of sharpness, lenses and even shuttershock.
The d850 again shows this compared to the d810 that is used.
You have to examine everything to get the best and the expected results...
for instance the nikon d850 has far less shuttershock so it does not interfere with VR anymore as the d810 did.
I can make 100% sharp images with my 300mm lens even at 1/30s handheld.
other example...
i have 500mm reflex nikkor- non vr.
Handheld i get more reliable sharp results than with a tripod - I live in Amsterdam build on soft soil and the micro vibration of the city is transported through the tripod.
my body is a soft intermediate that absorbs these vibrations.
-
Besides the tripod for good craft, there's IBS on some of the latest cameras along with lens stabilization. On a few, there's a combo of both. As i age, i appreciate this new tech, but still need to use a tripod when I can for the best practice for the sharpest images.
-
Besides the tripod for good craft, there's IBS on some of the latest cameras along with lens stabilization. On a few, there's a combo of both. As i age, i appreciate this new tech, but still need to use a tripod when I can for the best practice for the sharpest images.
I agree; i just depends on the subject and if a tripod can be used...
I am in favor of using tripods+ remote control in most conditions..
I have 5 tripods and use them all ...
On extra thing a tripod will give you is ...more time to think over what you are doing ..if it is the right position and all.
The position is one of the most important aspects of making a better photo.
-
+1!
If the situation allows, a tripod can be one of the best tools for not only good craft and image quality, but to lock-down the best POV as one contemplates and fine tunes. Some times the best way to photograph is to simply slow down and think before pushing the button.
-
Some times the best way to photograph is to simply slow down and think before pushing the button.
Great, great advice.
-
The habit of using a tripod for "best" shots is one that I am glad to have learned. I might fiddle with handheld shots for initial "working the scene", but when I have decided what I want, out comes the tripod. When I can't get the tripod, I shoot "burst" mode, and one of 6 or 7 shots might be good.
-
I am surprised that a question on whether or not to use a tripod posted in a landscape forum got so many varied answers.
Even shooting in broad daylight I would use a tripod for serious shots.
You want the camera rock solid. Even many tripods move in the breeze.
You want to be shooting at the lowest ISO for noise (which is bad on high MP 35mm cameras)
You also want the smallest clean aperture like say f11 for depth of field. That probably only gives you a shutter of 1/100th second at best. At sunrise and sunset it is way slower.
You also want the mirror up a long time before the shot to stop the mirror shake. This definitely requires a tripod. One of the (many) great things about medium format is that you can lock the mirror up permanently with a button instead of menus. (Another is leaf shutters.)
You then want a cable release or time delay shutter to stop touching the camera at the moment of capture.
There are lots of other useful things, like a third hand to change lenses and filter, a place to put the camera while you wander around, as well as the reflection time already mentioned.
-
All the varied answers are the result of everyone putting in their 2 cents worth of advice, some of whom missed the point of the OPs question...
Of course you can shoot without a tripod. I’m sure even an 8x10 could be hand held. The question is fundamental, though: is there a relationship between the need for a tripod to maintain sharpness and increasing pixel density (or, perhaps more correctly, decreasing pixel size).
The answer is YES. With smaller pixels (higher map or pixel density or more pixels per unit area), use of a tripod is more helpful for maintaining sharpness. Is it necessary? Depends on your shooting style, your expectations, how much you pixel peep and print size.
I am surprised that a question on whether or not to use a tripod posted in a landscape forum got so many varied answers.
Even shooting in broad daylight I would use a tripod for serious shots.
You want the camera rock solid. Even many tripods move in the breeze.
You want to be shooting at the lowest ISO for noise (which is bad on high MP 35mm cameras)
You also want the smallest clean aperture like say f11 for depth of field. That probably only gives you a shutter of 1/100th second at best. At sunrise and sunset it is way slower.
You also want the mirror up a long time before the shot to stop the mirror shake. This definitely requires a tripod. One of the (many) great things about medium format is that you can lock the mirror up permanently with a button instead of menus. (Another is leaf shutters.)
You then want a cable release or time delay shutter to stop touching the camera at the moment of capture.
There are lots of other useful things, like a third hand to change lenses and filter, a place to put the camera while you wander around, as well as the reflection time already mentioned.
-
All the varied answers are the result of everyone putting in their 2 cents worth of advice, some of whom missed the point of the OPs question...
Of course you can shoot without a tripod. I’m sure even an 8x10 could be hand held. The question is fundamental, though: is there a relationship between the need for a tripod to maintain sharpness and increasing pixel density (or, perhaps more correctly, decreasing pixel size).
The answer is YES. With smaller pixels (higher map or pixel density or more pixels per unit area), use of a tripod is more helpful for maintaining sharpness. Is it necessary? Depends on your shooting style, your expectations, how much you pixel peep and print size.
I agree with Terry - it all depends on one's expectations....
Me, I shoot with a high MP Sony (for landscapes anyway) AND I print big (A2+ minimum) and so IQ is of the utmost concern and priority - and so tripods, remote releases, heavy beanbags (draped over the camera), base ISO, and shutter speed (when possible) all get a workout to try and muscle IQ as much as is possible.
However, a lot of folks just want a nice low-res image to post on facebook or whatever - images that I bin would be just fine for this purpose, it just isn't my purpose...
Nonetheless, as Terry also points out, taking a slapdash approach to shooting with a high-megapixel camera is likely to disappoint - one simply cannot generally shoot with a 40 MP camera in the same way as one could with a 6 MP or 10 MP camera.
A Sony A7R series camera is smaller and lighter than any of the 6 MP or 10 MP cameras that I own from past days and by virtues of these facts lends itself to handholding - just not if IQ is the prime consideration...
Ultimately, a high megapixel camera demands careful attention to detail if one wants consistently high IQ - there is an envelope here which cannot be breached!
And, I think it is great - technique and craft still rule!!!
Tony Jay
-
beanbag over camera? I thought only supertelephoto shooters did that. Interesting.
On the other hand, I am still holding at 20 MP...
-
Hehe... but of course, the real question is: what are the results? Acceptable for only web use, I'd venture.
Nope.
I regularly print big and I regularly shoot hand held - especially when air travelling. Two criteria that probably apply to many of us here.
This image, referenced in another thread, is hand-held and printed nearly two metres wide. Looks great, sold several times.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/403/32535887121_e81d2b7d3d_c.jpg)
It is a two image stitch and it is shot under optimal conditions; full sun, so probably 1/350th and F8. 70-200mm Nikkor. @200mm.
-
For high megapixel cameras, you might need to go 3-4 times the reciprocal.
Something that is probably true but I still have difficulty accepting it. Particularly with VR when even 1/FL on my D750 seem to have frequent issues.
Now it's not related just to the megapixel count, a mirrorless will have an advantage if you can hold it properly as will have no mirror slap; it's easier for me to get sharp shots on a X-T2 with 24MP than on a D750 with 24MP despite higher pixel density on the Fuji and so far mirror slap is the only explanation I could come up with. Mirrorless will in theory have more shutter shock though unless EFCS.
The bean bag advice sounds good, I was thinking more of placing a camera on a bean bag on a rock/ground as in the high winds I recently encountered I needed a much bigger tripod to make a difference but on the camera will be helpful too.
With what do you fill them? You might not have sand available and to carry them already filled sounds kind of heavy.
The habit of using a tripod for "best" shots is one that I am glad to have learned. I might fiddle with handheld shots for initial "working the scene", but when I have decided what I want, out comes the tripod. When I can't get the tripod, I shoot "burst" mode, and one of 6 or 7 shots might be good.
I used this and it works at some extent. Not always to get a 24MP sharp image but more like 12MP. Then again, many times it's enough.
Also if it's too windy and not very long shutter speeds I leave the VR activated while on the tripod.
At the end of the day you don't need all those megapixels for every shot. It would be nice but people have been producing great shots with "only" 6-12MP.
-
Also remember that good image stabilization (in-camera or in-lens) helps.
Depending on your degree of fussiness, a sharp 12 to 18 MP image looks just fine at usual viewing distance (nose not on image) in a 24" x 36" print for home use. Depending on the image, noise may not be a huge problem. Remember film days - image with impact need not be technically perfect, if you are the one using the image. Non-photojournalist pros don't have the luxury of putting an otherwise stunning image with suboptimal technical quality in their portfolios.
-
Can someone enlighten me why by simply increasing the no. of pixel on the same size sensor, the camera becomes less hand-holdable?
-
Can someone enlighten me why by simply increasing the no. of pixel on the same size sensor, the camera becomes less hand-holdable?
I am not an expert, nor I googled the answer, just trying to figure it out for myself:
Let's assume we double the number of pixels that now covers the same subject size and the same amount of subject details. Let's further assume that our camera shake produces a one-pixel smear in the direction of the shake. Well, that detail smear will be now represented by two pixels with the larger sensor (or, to be precise, 1.41x for a perfectly unidirectional smear). Up to a certain print/web size, this wouldn't even be noticeable. However, as mentioned before, the very purpose of large sensors is to print large, thus the difference will be visible during pixel peeping or in large prints.
-
Can someone enlighten me why by simply increasing the no. of pixel on the same size sensor, the camera becomes less hand-holdable?
Hi,
If a given amount of shake is spread over a larger number of pixels, not much will change if you output to the same output size at a proportionally higher PPI (besides the ability to do better output sharpening). But assuming you use the additional pixels to create larger output at the same PPI, the individual pixels can be more blurry unless camera shake is controlled better.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart and Slobodan.
I think I get it. It's not that the shake error is different in spatial terms. But if you were to take advantage of the higher pixel density by printing bigger at the same ppi, you have to start worrying about the how steady your hand was.
So at the pixel density of several years ago, the resolution was sensor-limited. Then as the sensors got better, it was lens-limited. Now it is hand-limited. Just when I was beginning to think my hands are not as steady as they used to be... :)
:Niranjan.
-
I tend to agree with her. My recent trip, where I was shooting handheld all the time (from a ship, moving cars, walking), just proved that.
Now, tripod is not the only solution. Increasing the shutter speed is the other. It used to be in the film days that it would be enough to use a reciprocal of the lens focal length (e.g., 1/125s for 100 mm to 135mm lenses). If you wanted to be on the safe side, you'd double that. For high megapixel cameras, you might need to go 3-4 times the reciprocal. Obviously, image stabilization might help and let you get away with less than that, but only for really stationary subjects.
Current high resolution 35mm format cameras have about two to three times the _linear_ resolution of film, so add between one and two stops to the shutter speed needed to control hand-shake. On the other hand, IS can given you about four or five stops (maybe less so for systems like Canon that lack IBIS). So overall, hand-holding works with about two or three stops less light (and I am ruling out using the higher ISO speeds allowed by modern sensors).
For me, IS has made my tripod and monopod far less necessary than with film, though I am only at 16MP.
-
Obviously, image stabilization might help and let you get away with less than that, but only for really stationary subjects.
Somewhat ironically, the argument for higher resolution increasing the need for a tripod is less with fast moving subjects; only higher shutter speeds can help. This because only higher shutter speeds can control subject motion blur (about three times higher needed with the 5DS than with film) and that factor of increase in shutter speed is the same as what you need to control blurring from camera motion when hand-holding.
This could just mean that when new sensors raise your sharpness goals for fast moving subjects, "three legged image stabilization" (a tripod, aka "TLIS") is as necessary as it as with film; neither more nor less. On the other hand, with stationary subjects, TLIS is clearly more beneficial when there is not adequate in-camera IS, but less important when the best modern IS (four or five stops) is usable.
-
Hi,
If a given amount of shake is spread over a larger number of pixels, not much will change if you output to the same output size at a proportionally higher PPI (besides the ability to do better output sharpening). But assuming you use the additional pixels to create larger output at the same PPI, the individual pixels can be more blurry unless camera shake is controlled better.
Cheers,
Bart
So to summarize, for a fixed output the visible shake is mostly proportional to the sensor size and not to the pixel count? Assuming the same amount of shake each time.
-
So to summarize, for a fixed output the visible shake is mostly proportional to the sensor size and not to the pixel count?
I'd say that a larger physical sensor size, with longer focal length for the same FoV, requires less output magnification for the same size output. So that should more or less cancel out.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I met a photographer recently who uses a Canon 5ds for landscapes. She says that the camera can not be used without a tripod because its super resolution reveals even the slightest hand movement.
Given her comment, one might ask about the high megapixel SONY and Nikon cameras. At over 40 megapixels would they not also demand a tripod?
Do their new image stabilizations and autofocus technologies make it possible to hand hold these cameras without blur?
High megapixel or not, when ever possible I shoot with a tripod. Obviously this doesn't apply to all subjects. For studio portraits I prefer a tripod even with electronic flash but thats for a formalized look.
But tripod work if done properly will always produce the sharpest images if that is important to you.
-
I regularly shoot 100mp 15x ND images hand-held 3-4 min exposures, but I have yet to find one that I want to print J/K. They do make interesting backgrounds. I think you should try some shots off tripod and the same shots on tripod and compare for yourself, then you will remember which style is for what. 99.9% of my landscapes are on legs....period!
-
So to summarize, for a fixed output the visible shake is mostly proportional to the sensor size and not to the pixel count? Assuming the same amount of shake each time.
No. Camera shake means the angle of the camera changed during the exposure. This results in blurring of the object imaged on the sensor. If you characterize the blurring in terms of angle, it is completely independent of sensor size (physical size or pixel count), and also completely independent of lens. The lens and sensor enter only if you want to convert angular blur to pixel blur, or to linear blur on a final print of some size.
For example, if your camera rotates about a vertical axis by 1 mrad (0.057 degree) during the exposure, a tree at distance of 100 meters will be blurred horizontally by 100 millimeters, about the size of a large leaf. If the lens and sensor are good enough to resolve the leaves on the tree, and you print the image large enough, and view it from close enough, you will see this blur in the print. The blur will be about the size of a leaf on the print, independent of the lens and sensor used to record the image, and independent of the print size.
If you want to convert the blur (leaf) to pixels, then you need to know lens and sensor details. Continuing the example, suppose you capture the image with a 100mm lens. For an object at a distance of 100m, the lens will have magnification 1/1000, so the blur (leaf) will have a size of 100 microns on the sensor. (You can alternatively calculate that a rotation angle of 1mrad times a focal length of 100mm gives a linear size of 100um.) If the sensor has 5um pixels, the blur (leaf) will span 20 pixels.
-
From a practical perspective...
I recently traded my 13mpx 5d for the 50mpx 5ds. And I can say that even using my non-“L” prime lenses that there is a very clear increase in detail from the 5ds even when hand held.
If you think about it, if using a low mpx camera, adding camera shake will just add more blur to even a low pixel count image. So, in the right circumstances, a tripod is required for all cameras. But, the advantages of the 5ds will still be visible, even hand held.
So, don’t feel that you’ve wasted your money with the 5ds without a tripod for every photograph. But, for maximum detail with any camera, a tripod is always best.