Are Tripods Still Necessary For Landscape Photography?
Jun 18, 2023 10:21:49 #
47greyfox wrote:
If you’re doing landscape “snapshots,” maybe there’s an argument for leaving the tripod home. However, if multiple and/or long exposures (for any reason, not just pano) are part your scheme, a good, solid tripod is a must. A big mistake is not having a tripod along if there’s even a chance you might need it.
Jun 18, 2023 10:26:32 #
Necessary? No. Preferable? Yes. The camera is totally steady, and the photographer has set his ideal composition. He can even use a shutter delay, although that's probably a non-issue with a mirrorless.
Jun 18, 2023 10:28:04 #
Jun 18, 2023 10:29:44 #
mffox wrote:
In my experience, a tripod is a necessity; I'm 86 and my hands shake.
Shaky hands are a nuisance. Mine started (essential tremor) when I was about 55. It's embarrassing when someone is watching me filling out a form or signing something. I look like a shaky old man.
Jun 18, 2023 10:33:40 #
Peterfiore wrote:
Sometime light is a fleeting moment.
Isn't that the truth? Especially when you might be trying for those blue or golden hour shots.
Here in the southeastern plains of Colorado, and I'm sure that this happens elsewhere too, we have the most interesting clouds that are backlit by the sun causing intense light around the edges. So much so that cameras without excellent dynamic range would struggle.
This only happens a couple of times per year and by the time I get the camera out, the moment is gone. I just don't move as fast as I used to, so it goes... I guess that someone younger and quicker is going to make it happen.
Jun 18, 2023 10:39:50 #
Mac wrote:
With IBIS are tripods still necessary? Especially when using a smaller, lighter lens like a prime? I understand that with some types of photography (and lenses) tripods are needed, but has IBIS made them redundant in others?
There is only one way to know what will or not work for you. That is to try it with your camera, your lens, and your tripod.
Of course a few pages of what other people do never hurt UHH numbers.
---
Jun 18, 2023 10:58:01 #
Bill_de wrote:
There is only one way to know what will or not work for you. That is to try it with your camera, your lens, and your tripod.
Of course a few pages of what other people do never hurt UHH numbers.
---
Of course a few pages of what other people do never hurt UHH numbers.
---
That is correct Bill. I am going out this week to experiment, I was curious what others thought about it.
Jun 18, 2023 11:13:08 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
We all have our own way of taking pictures. And the type of pictures you take and the lighting at the time. Also the steadiness of each of us. We are all correct for our selves.
Do your own thing.
Do your own thing.
Jun 18, 2023 11:46:40 #
Mac wrote:
With IBIS are tripods still necessary? Especially when using a smaller, lighter lens like a prime? I understand that with some types of photography (and lenses) tripods are needed, but has IBIS made them redundant in others?
Yes--many landscapes need no tripod, but some do. I don't have any image stabilization cameras, but I now have some lenses that have it (Canon), and my knowledge of the topic is limited to my personal use and experience. I have no clue about the physics or electronic designs.
1. Even IBIS has limits for optimal results--just as "sharpening tools" in post-processing do. IBIS certainly assures "getting a picture" for more landscape scenarios.
2. IBIS would not have helped in shooting "Moonrise Over Hernandez," even with modern equipment.
3. Raising ISO or opening up the aperture to accommodate the shutter even with IBIS will limit the options for the photo. Landscapes often want both smaller apertures and lower ISO. Tripods give more options for both. Clearly, a sunny day with nothing very close in the picture can shoot at handheld speeds with or without IBIS, using any aperture, any speed, and any ISO desired, with longer lenses (up to a point...).
4. Desired blur (such as flowing water) might give unwanted blur elsewhere in the photo, without tripod.
5. When sharpness is wanted, a still camera will always be sharper than a moving one, so acceptable results are a matter of choice (both for resolution and for ISO noise). Acceptable sharpness depends both on your taste or purpose and on the degree of enlargement anticipated. Even IBIS will show blur or noise if you enlarge it enough, given your choice of aperture and ISO (I think?) The standards for one project may be much lower than one for National Geographic.
Jun 18, 2023 11:53:12 #
Jun 18, 2023 11:55:54 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Necessary? No. Preferable? Yes. The camera is totally steady, and the photographer has set his ideal composition. He can even use a shutter delay, although that's probably a non-issue with a mirrorless.
Jerry, I thought shutter delay was so you can run around and get in the picture yourself.
Jun 18, 2023 12:03:03 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Longshadow wrote:
I'll still use a tripod when necessary.
Image stabilization has its limits.
It's an advantage, not a crutch.
Image stabilization has its limits.
It's an advantage, not a crutch.
Jun 18, 2023 12:05:49 #
Jun 18, 2023 12:23:10 #
Mac wrote:
With IBIS are tripods still necessary? Especially when using a smaller, lighter lens like a prime? I understand that with some types of photography (and lenses) tripods are needed, but has IBIS made them redundant in others?
I still use a tripod for landscapes especially when I want to be sure to hold the horizon line flat or wish to crop tightly but still get all I want into the photograph.
Dennis
Jun 18, 2023 12:28:25 #
I'm gonna go out on a limb here - a CAMERA, with a compatible LENS, and the KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS to use the camera & lens are NECESSARY. A tripod would be optional. Don't believe me? Aren't quite sure? Then TRY making a PHOTO with only a tripod and without using a CAMERA and LENS!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.