Time to ditch our tripods?

Carrigman

Yes, according to Ken Rockwell in his interesting article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

Dunno though. I ain't got no IS or VR lenses so I'll be lugging around my trusty Manfrotto for some time yet.

Fenster

Sadly many people still look like idiots using tripods with digital cameras in daylight. These guys are throwbacks to the 1950s, or the early 2000s.

Yeah, I'd love to see him manage a one minute exposure with an IS lens.

"d00d, i hav teh whites!!1"

Whatever.

I'm not taken with his arguments, he's happy (and has the money) to go with fast glass, high ISO and big apertures. It suits his style. Great for him. Mine own style doesn't go all that well with such as most of my HDR and IR photos would be impossible without either a modded camera or tripod.

Moreso, I'm not a fan of sensor noise. It doesn't look bad in the thumbnails in his photos, but blow them up a little and you'll see varicose vein aplenty.

Third, the absolute worst thing you can say to someone as a pro is "my style is the best, anyone who does otherwise is wrong and stupid," as it winds up casting you as anything but one.

Fionn

i haven't even got a good tripod yet, but thats not going to put me off - i reckon its an essential piece of equipment for sharp photographs under lots of conditions!!

elven

Why do people have to go to extremes with these things? Just because you don't want to shoot at ISO1600 your'e stuck in the dark ages? Ugh. I can't even vocabulate how wrong the tone of that article is. Ditto what Fenster said.

Redundo

I have a Canon 28-135 IS lens and to be honest most of the time I leave the IS turned off. I know it was one of the earliest IS systems, but I have always felt that while IS may get a handheld shot at 1/10 it would always be slightly unsharp and never as good as a shot with an appropriate speed without IS. I would honestly prefer a 2.8 lens to an IS one.

He said it himself that you have to shoot several times before you can be sure of a good shot. Sorry, doesn't work for me as how are you supposed to know you do have a sharp one and not just wasted your time and a good opportunity?

B0rG

well, he's shooting F/4 at 12-24 range. And he has achieved that higher buddist state of body and mind where one can actually hold 1/4 and 1/8. I can't. And he's using crop and resize for web where it shows nothing.

For some of us who's shooting early morning at F/22 with the polarizer on tripod is still a must

Shiny

I wont be getting rid of my tripod for a long time yet.


I like my landscapes and they need my tripod.:)


Handheld at sunrise/sunset, my ass.

Rob_T

My 1st post to this forum so I hope I'm not speaking outta turn.

But...while I also use tripods (a Gorillapod and a standard Tripod) I was able to take this image hand held using my 17-85mm IS lens. It really just depends on what you have with you at the time I suppose.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capturedlight/390342184/

Roen

Rob_T wrote:

My 1st post to this forum so I hope I'm not speaking outta turn.

But...while I also use tripods (a Gorillapod and a standard Tripod) I was able to take this image hand held using my 17-85mm IS lens. It really just depends on what you have with you at the time I suppose.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capturedlight/390342184/

Nice one, even at the max size there's barely a hint of blur in the traffic bollards.
And I certainly wouldn't worry about speaking out of turn. Although Friday is traditionally reserved for arguments

Rob_T

excellent I'll look forward to Fridays then:)

Dara Robinson

Maybe I like my tripot. Makes me feel more organised and sorta professional in a way. (geeeeek )

But I think I will read over the article agian and try out some of the things he was saying. He says to try and shoot at f22 on tripot and then try the same shot at f8 hand held. says that the image will be sharper handhelp. I must try that and see.

Thanks Carrigman, these articles help when you take its a peices and fit them into your overall picture.

Stephen

Given that most of the lenses with image stabilisation/vibration reduction/whatever your manufacturer calls it cost more than all my kit combined, I think I'll stick with my tripod for a while yet

davmigil

I totally agree with the article, tripods are so extinct.


ps if you are selling your tripod as a result of this article PM me

magicbastarder

he's just stirring.

rymus

I [heart] my tripod. It cost an arm and a leg to buy it so I need something to steady the camera nowadays

paudie

Yeah tripods are so pre IS. I handhold my 600mm all the time

TJM

Not the best moon shot ever perhaps - but this was taken hand held with a 300mm lens + 2x teleconverter, on a 1.5 crop sensor (so 900mm equivalent) - at 1/45s! (Pentax in body shake reduction.)

leinsterman

I think I can sum it up ...

Rockwell is a muppet!

magicbastarder

TJM wrote:

Not the best moon shot ever perhaps - but this was taken hand held

the moon is very bright, though.
i like what little i've seen of ken rockwell.

JMcL

Dara Robinson wrote:

But I think I will read over the article agian and try out some of the things he was saying. He says to try and shoot at f22 on tripot and then try the same shot at f8 hand held. says that the image will be sharper handhelp. I must try that and see.

Rockwell talks out his arse a bit sometimes. Your image certainly won't be sharper at f/8 if your shutter speed is too long, however to actually compare like with like f/8 on a tripod will be sharper than f/22 as he is actually right about diffraction (I've been reading far too many articles with hard sums in them over the past while , however on a practical basis I can see it in my images). I've started to limit the apertures I'm using for this reason whenever possible, usually staying below f/16. Fortunately on wide angle lenses (10mm) depth of field isn't really a problem, as you can set the aperture to f/8, manually focus to about 3 metres and everything from about 50cm to infinity will be in focus