Are "tripods" really necessary for landscape shots?
Dec 31, 2019 09:01:09 #
bbrown5154
Loc: Baltimore, MD
jerryc41 wrote:
I seldom use a tripod for landscape shots. With enough lighting, I don't need one. If you're going to take the time to get the framing perfect, try a filter or two, or wait for just the right moment, then a tripod would help.
Dec 31, 2019 09:10:05 #
berchman wrote:
I don't use one because of the frustration of constantly fiddling with extending the legs just a bit or shortening them just a bit or changing the angle of the legs to get the tripod level. It's said not to use a center column; hence, the leg fiddling.
You may find a tripod leveling base useful. Takes the legs mostly out of the equation. Personally I have found them invaluable in eliminating what you find frustrating. Many makes, I use Acratech.
Dec 31, 2019 09:24:13 #
pesfls wrote:
You may find a tripod leveling base useful. Takes the legs mostly out of the equation. Personally I have found them invaluable in eliminating what you find frustrating. Many makes, I use Acratech.
A bubble level in the accessory shoe works also.
(My tilt-pan head has a bubble level in the head.)
Dec 31, 2019 09:26:54 #
I rarely use a tripod. With the proper lens and settings, I can get an accurate representation of what I am shoot of a high enough quality. This really includes panorama and almost dusk shots. But it all depends on what you expect and are going for.
Dec 31, 2019 10:18:00 #
dsnoke wrote:
I find using a tripod gets me better results because I have to slow down and consider just where to place the tripod. That slowing down has improved my compositions immensely. I often shoot a few shots on the tripod and more handheld. Results at seven-oaks.net/dickspics
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
I agree....it forces one to take more time; rather then just point and shoot.
Dec 31, 2019 10:18:14 #
scubadoc
Loc: Sarasota, FL
To the OP: Can you shoot a 5 stop HDR image handhold? I have tried, using in camera image stabilization and 9 frame/second shooting. If you can, kudos, and I would like to know your tricks.
Dec 31, 2019 10:21:49 #
philo wrote:
I agree....it forces one to take more time; rather then just point and shoot.
Interesting, I take my time hand held also.
Dec 31, 2019 10:25:04 #
scubadoc wrote:
To the OP: Can you shoot a 5 stop HDR image handhold? I have tried, using in camera image stabilization and 9 frame/second shooting. If you can, kudos, and I would like to know your tricks.
Really???
OBVIOUSLY it depends on the requirements for the photo!
Since not EVERYONE does that, maybe they don't require a tripod.
It depends on the situation.
Dec 31, 2019 10:29:13 #
toast wrote:
Here is the one question I come away with. Several people mentioned they want the ISO at base level or 100. But would you really notice a difference in a picture if the ISO was 100 or 1000? I can't see the difference and I've tried to see it. No more noise or grain at 1000 than at 100. If you are going to blow up the picture that may indeed be a different story. I just can't see the harm at shooting at ISO 1000 or 1500 for a normal size picture.
ISO 1000? Can't hear you...too much noise. It's there, believe me. But if you are only interested in images to share online or view at smaller size, won't bother you, probably. Many folks here take their photography very seriously. They/we want our images to be as sharp and clear as possible. Base ISO means you will get all the Dynamic Range your camera is capable of. Means Noise will be at its lowest. Means, if your camera was "rock steady" through the shot AND you used the Proper F/stop AND you focused properly, THEN you will get the maximum detail from that camera and lens combo. Folks used to "snap-shots" may not notice the difference between the two. Folks used to high quality, "gallery worthy" images probably will.
Dec 31, 2019 10:30:10 #
toast wrote:
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (show quote)
Sorry, you will get noise at 2000 or 3000 ISO. You are just not looking.
Dec 31, 2019 10:37:17 #
Sometimes they are useful or even essential. I take lots of "Landscape" shots. Rarely, if ever, use my tripod. Worst ROI on any of my photo equipment. 
Dec 31, 2019 10:39:38 #
Longshadow wrote:
Really???
OBVIOUSLY it depends on the requirements for the photo!
Since not EVERYONE does that, maybe they don't require a tripod.
It depends on the situation.
OBVIOUSLY it depends on the requirements for the photo!
Since not EVERYONE does that, maybe they don't require a tripod.
It depends on the situation.
Exactly
Dec 31, 2019 11:05:45 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
toast wrote:
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (show quote)
This is the most simple question seen on here that I remember.
One uses a tripod if one does not have the ability to hold the camera steady enough, for whatever reason. What is the mystery here? Why does landscape use or not make a difference?
Dec 31, 2019 11:05:49 #
Dec 31, 2019 11:13:25 #
Yes, absolutely. It's very difficult to frame, focus, and expose without a rock-steady tripod. But then, 4x5 view cameras were never meant to be handheld.
--Bob
--Bob
toast wrote:
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.