petego4it Loc: NY

Thank you all. Wide range of comments/careful thoughts, much appreciated, from the basic to the nuanced. Hopefully will help many. Personally, I've been a shooter for many years so know basic rules like the focal length vs. the shutter speed, depth of field, composition, bracing, vibration control, etc. but did leave an open-ended question so no doubt others will appreciate those tips. I have fine/advanced equipment that allow a wide range of options. For whatever reason tho, I've mostly avoided tripods, wondered lately if I wasn't missing something...like for ex catching properly the rustle of the leaves in a breeze in a fall landscape shot. The humidity and air quality Linda above mentions is a new thought too. I was also wondering about RRS tripods since I need to re-equip to do this. I travel a lot so obviously prefer one of their lighter versions...hopefully not a 20 lb-er. as Dan states!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

To some extent... yes.

However, some shots are difficult without a tripod, even when you're able to use a higher shutter speed....

For example, macro photography. High magnification means very shallow depth of field, which in turn means smaller apertures. So unless you are willing to push ISO up to levels where image noise is a problem, or are able to use flash to supplement available light, a tripod might be necessary. Focusing macro shots is also often best done using a "focusing stage" technique with a tripod or monopod.

Another important use for a tripod is when shooting with multiple cameras and/or for longer periods of time. Try hand-holding a 300/2.8 or 500/4 for four hours at a sporting event or in a wildlife blind! Hang one DSLR with a 70-200/2.8 and another with a 100-400mm on it around your neck for an hour or two and see if you think a tripod might be helpful.

A tripod with a gimbal head is also a wonderful tool when using big, heavy lenses.... Set up correctly you can track moving subjects swiftly and easily with a very light touch.

If your tripod is "cumbersome"... if it's not a tool that you appreciate and want to use... you probably need to look into getting a better tripod! Bought right, a tripod can be a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Most people buy way, way to cheaply and end up not wanting to use the flimsy POS. If they'd spent more and gotten a really good tripod, chances are they would be more enthusiastic about using it.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Like all the other tools available to you, tripods have their place. A really good tripod may be the best way to get a sharp shot, but it may also not be the only way. Although I would rather not use a tripod if I don't have to, I use them all the time because, in some cases, they are the best solution. YMMV

tomcat

Excellent answer and I would add that when you increase the ISO, you run the risk of adding noise to your image from the higher ISO values. Noise can definitely degrade the sharpness. 'Tis much less stress to get a good stable tripod (not the cheap flimsy ones).

William Royer Loc: Kansas

Being a fundamentally lazy person, I don't use a tripod as often as I probably should. And, yes, the ability of current cameras at higher iso's is a help in juggling the right combination of SS, aperture, and ISO. But, only up,to a point. It also matters how one intends to use the image -- a significant reduction in size from, for example, 36/24mp to email size will cover some sins. But, when I do use a tripod even on bright days and shoot at 'native ISO' and higher SS, I can see the positive difference. Particularly at larger sizes. So, I promise myself that using a tripod will be my new normal. But ....

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Great advice if you're Mickey Hargitay, or take all your pictures within fifty feet of an available parking place.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

That partly depends on how fast you need to shoot and how much "noise" you are willing to accept in your photo. This is in addition to the other great comments.

BebuLamar

If you have enough light. If you don't then even with an f/1.2 lens and ISO 100,000 you still can't have shutter speed of 1/1000 or 1/2000.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

That's true, once you get to, at least in my experience, 1/800 or up you can get pretty clear shots hand held. I've attached a photo shot with my Canon 75-300 lens at full extension in bright sun at 1/1000.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

That's true. Once you get to about 1/800 you can get clear hand held shots but you'll need plenty of light. I've attached a shot I did with my Canon
75-300 lens at full extension and 1/1000.

(Download)

chuckbob

Pentax iK50, $350, to new K70-$650 beat any competitor for 1/2 the price. Weatherized, built in IS, 6 fps etc. IS = free fstop.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

As mentioned, IS/VR can make a huge difference when handholding a long lens and shooting relatively stationary objects. I have shot stationary birds with a 400mm lens and a 1.4x extender (560 mm equivalent) at 1/125 without any sign of camera shake with an IS-equipped lens.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

----

Taking great photos requires dedication. Higher shutter speeds won't solve any of the issues I raised. That was the OP's question.

That's not to say I lug around a 20 pound tripod. For me, freedom of movement and spontaneity trump ultimate sharpness.

--------

Jim Bob

Depends.

Kuzano

True and False. You may get a sharp shot, but the shot will always be sharper with a tripod. A no-tripod cheat will never give you the sharpest image.

In fact in a study on exactly what you ask about, I read that adding a ten pound bag of dead weight to the center column will even increase the sharpness of the image beyond the bare tripod alone.

A tripod and a manual actuation of the shutter will not give you the sharpness of a tripod and a cable or remote shutter.

A tripod additionally weighted in the center AND tripped with a remote shutter will give you the sharpest imaginable image of the the combinations of any of the four..... hand held, tripod, weight tripod or unweighted tripod with remote shutter trip.

Now a question back to you. Which of the above, including your question, would you vie for for the BEST sharpness in an image.

Handheld at 1/1000 or 1/2000 is nowhere near an answer.

If you are connected to your gear in any way, YOU ARE the "fail point".