Are Tripods Still Necessary For Landscape Photography? (Page 7): I don't know if its the case these days, but at one time if you read across "the literature" on how to obtain the best...

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

I don't know if its the case these days, but at one time if you read across "the literature" on how to obtain the best photographs possible, the one "rule" universally given was use a tripod.

User ID

Fredrick wrote:

"but has IBIS made them (tripods) redundant in others?" Answer - mostly yes. However, I don't know how you would, for example, take multiple focus (foreground, mid ground, background) images and blend them without a tripod.

Seems pretty clear that focus stacking was never intended to be a part of the question ... likewise for stitched panos.

Acoarst both of those can, in favorable situations, be done handheld but thaz really a rather limited set of situations.

For that stuff a tripod is actually more liberating than restrictive. And tripods used for those purposes are providing accurate positioning rather than the extreme rock steadiness needed with time exposures, so they can be much lighter and easier to tote. (Acoarst, if youre planning on stitching a few time exposures ..... )

anotherview Loc: California

As well, try mirror lockup. Put a bubble level in the hot-shoe mount. After triggering the shutter by remote action, note the slight movement in the bubble fluid. Mirror slap causes it.

Then actuate the shutter for the second time. No mechanical action happens.

As a result, the exposure contains no blur.

Suspending a sand bag from the center of the tripod eliminates the miniscule vibration from sources such as passing automobiles, the wind, loud carried noises, etc.

Traveller_Jeff wrote:

To avoid camera shake while on a tripod and without a wire release, try setting the timer for a 5 or 10-second delay after you press the shutter.

User ID

anotherview wrote:

As well, try mirror lockup. Put a bubble level in the hot-shoe mount. After triggering the shutter by remote action, note the slight movement in the bubble fluid. Mirror slap causes it.

Then actuate the shutter for the second time. No mechanical action happens.

As a result, the exposure contains no blur.

Suspending a sand bag from the center of the tripod eliminates the miniscule vibration from sources such as passing automobiles, the wind, loud carried noises, etc.

Fortunately, many self timers raise the mirror up immediately and then release shutter 10 sec later.

ialvarez50

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?

One misconception people tend to have about IBIS is that it doesn't have an impact on the optical design of the lens. This is untrue. IBIS does impact the optical design of the lens as the best lenses for IBIS have a larger image circle.
It is important to understand that if you want to create razor-sharp images you need a good lens and preferably a camera that doesn’t have stabilization. I have always preferred to use my knowledge of photography than rely on a camera body that is going to do everything for me.
I normally use a tripod if I need to create an image that is sharp from near to infinity. The reason is this; I prefer to use a 50 or 100 ISO and very good professional lenses. I have a 5D Mark III, for digital images, and many film cameras from F-1, T-90s, to EOS 1V. Along with Mamiya 645, 6X7 and a Zone VI 4X5. Almost all of these cameras I use with a tripod and cable release.

The picture that I am including was shot with a Linhoff 2-1/4X 3-3/4 using Pan X film shot at 12 ASA, the exposure was f/22 for 32 minutes to eliminate the people in the picture since this is a very busy lobby of the Hilton Towers Hotel in Chicago.

User ID

ialvarez50 wrote:

One misconception people tend to have about IBIS i... (show quote)

You are claiming that a definite optical benefit is a deficiency. Very pure UHH photographic "expertise".

There is absolutely nothing at all optically inferior with a lens having a slightly larger image circle to accommodate IBIS.

Geekwise (thaz you) theres even a minor benefit to the larger circle. If you shut off the IBIS the recorded image avoids using the outermost edges, minimizing corner shading and-or softness. As a tripod user, you should find optical nirvana in that.

anotherview Loc: California

The rule applied in olden days.

RodeoMan wrote:

I don't know if its the case these days, but at one time if you read across "the literature" on how to obtain the best photographs possible, the one "rule" universally given was use a tripod.

Bill_de Loc: US

anotherview wrote:

The rule applied in olden days.

And remember, many, very many of us are from the olden days!

---

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Bill_de wrote:

And remember, many, very many of us are from the olden days!

---

To transform the words of George Orwell: 'All people are different, but some of us are more different'.

Bill_de Loc: US

DirtFarmer wrote:

To transform the words of George Orwell: 'All people are different, but some of us are more different'.

---

ialvarez50

No sir, I know how to create images with any camera, I do not now or ever need technology to improve my images. Does heaving a larger circle of confusion improve an image, maybe. But, I don't care. I will continue to use my expertise and knowledge of photography to create images.
You can do whatever you want in your end. If using something like that is the only way for you to get better images, I trully don't care.

anotherview Loc: California

This statement comes close to my view, too: "I will continue to use my expertise and knowledge of photography to create images."

ialvarez50 wrote:

No sir, I know how to create images with any camera, I do not now or ever need technology to improve my images. Does heaving a larger circle of confusion improve an image, maybe. But, I don't care. I will continue to use my expertise and knowledge of photography to create images.
You can do whatever you want in your end. If using something like that is the only way for you to get better images, I trully don't care.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

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?

It depends. If you want to blur a waterfall or river flow, a tripod is needed. Any multi-second exposure needs a tripod. A landscape scene with star trails needs a tripod. If you're not shooting anything like this, leave the tripod home.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

chrisg-optical wrote:

It depends. If you want to blur a waterfall or river flow, a tripod is needed. Any multi-second exposure needs a tripod. A landscape scene with star trails needs a tripod. If you're not shooting anything like this, leave the tripod home.

Good examples of many situations where a tripod is useful. But I can see the other side too, and I agree that a tripod can be a nuisance. That's why I own several.

I keep my main, relatively lightweight tripod in my pickup under the rear seat, so I always have it when I go out. I keep a similar one in the house.

I have a couple of old rock-solid Husky tripods from the '70s or '80s that weigh more than I do, but they're great for astro, pixel-shift, or any other work where a steady camera is a must.

And for times when I really don't want to lug around a big tripod, I still have two options: a small tabletop (rock-top, fence-top) tripod that fits in my extra lens pouch alongside an extra lens; and my favorite item for many situations, a trekking pole with a ball head.

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

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?

They never were necessary