WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

T[quote=kymarto][quote=mrjcall]Not sure about your tripod, but I can get mine in 99% of the positions I need. I did give you the caveat that there are certainly types of shooting that preclude it's use however.. I will add that the more you use a tripod, the more you will find out it's value and so the more you will use it. I'm up to over 90% at this point in time. :thumbup:[/quote

I'd miss 90% of my shots if I used a tripod, either because my subject would have moved or because I am shooting at ground level or from a rock or whatever. I also do a lot of action panning and "catching the moment". I've been doing this professionally for quite a while, and I own four good carbon fiber tripods and two monopods. With VR lenses I can usually get away without using one at all, but I will give you that they are useful with lenses longer than 300mm, shooting at night, and for HDR bracket series. Otherwise they mostly just get in the way.[/quote]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

I'll say it again, unless you are into action or photojournalist type photography, your photos are not as good as they could be without using a tripod. Simple fact. Those who complain about hassle and inconvenience need to get serious if they want to improve... If you're good with the status quo (as many are) then you don't want to hear any of this, eh? 8-)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

MrJ, it's horses for courses. For advanced shooters, what and how they shoot will dictate when and how a tripod would be used if at all.
The more you use it, for some will just reinforce that a pod can just get in the way or is not necessary.
For some 10% use is a lot and 90% would just be going through the motions.
Personally I feel that the more one uses one has nothing to do with realizing ones needs or that they're photography will improve at all.
Certainly for any photography a tripod can't hurt in a basic way. But it in no way may help improve a shooters outcome, especially for advanced photographers that know exactly what they need to get their results.
I use one probably 10% of the time and for the other 90% it would indeed be a hinderance and my shots would start to go backwards.
Sure, for landscape, go ahead and use one. Mountains, afterall, aren't going anywhere fast!!
It's a little bit condescending to believe that how YOU do something must surely be better for others methods also, especially if they are as, or more experienced than yourself.
Use a tripod when it's needed and forget it when it's not. Just know the difference. ;-)
SS

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

A year ago I would've agreed with you along with 'your' percentages. The majority of what I shoot benefits noticeably through the use of a tripod so my use has increased dramatically. That statement work for ya?

One last point, I have never indicated that using a tripod is a necessity. It obviously isn't and for many, it's just too big a hassle. I've learned to live with the inconvenience because of the positive effects on my end product.
:thumbup:

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

In the film days obtaining excellent quality images was dependent upon 1) the film you selected, 2) how flat the camera held the film, 3) the quality of the lens. Everything else was irrelevant. Shutters could be accurate or not, you can compensate, apertures can be compensated for too. The only time you needed to worry about differences was if you needed high shutter speeds, many cameras didn't have that capability, if you needed the best optics, and/or you needed a larger aperture range. The aperture might push you to higher priced glass, the shutter speed into higher priced bodies.

Applying this to today, I guess that means the quality of the sensor and the quality of the glass. But it's more complicated than that now. Sensors come in different flavours and the computer chips that process the data vary too. Sensor size makes a difference as well. Then, since you're not buying film you need a camera that has a broad ISO range and a good white balance capability too. So suddenly things are more complicated. Those factors we used to address by buying an appropriate film and having it processed with appropriate chemistry. Now it's all built into the camera. It's the same with glass too, that too is more complicated these days and different offerings are quite different in performance but then there always have been differences in glass.

So I don't agree with your friend. Forty years ago the advice might have made sense but today it's outdated I think.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It's a question of degree. If camera shake is imperceptible at 100% magnification you have lost nothing and gained both time and mobility. If you can't compose shots handheld that is your problem,

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Mr J,
I use a tripod for static subjects like flowers, landscapes, the moon, architecture shots, long exposures and always for video. For creeping up on birds or shooting playing children, parties, walking on the beach or in a public space, etc. I can't see using one because I have to move around quickly, not bump into people, and catch the moment which changes quickly. For me that means a much smaller percentage than 90% is handheld. What kind of shooting do you do that 90% or more is amenable to a tripod?
Bob

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

I've been concentrating on architecture and landscapes this summer, most of which involve bracketing combining in either LR HDR or Photomatix as well as long exposure shooting. Used to handhold all my macro stuff, but now am on a tripod. Requires some thinking ahead when one is shooting butterflies, eh? 8-) Getting ready to shoot our local fair in a few weeks and will all be on tripod...

Back in the day when I was a combat photographer in the Navy and afterwards working for a newspaper, I didn't know what a tripod was so I do understand what many are saying...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks for the info.