The usual.... Tripod use.
rook2c4 wrote:
Ultimate sharpness means absolutely nothing if you can't get the shot in the first place.
It could also be stated that the shot means nothing if you cannot get ultimate sharpness in the first place! Depends upon many factors, not the least of which is the ultimate purpose of the photograph.
I agree that tripods will improve the sharpness of most types of photography. That said, shooting life size images of mobile insects with a tripod is usually a lesson in frustration. By the time you can get set up, your subject has likely moved on, meaning lost shots. My keeper rate went up when I started using auxillary lighting. The short flash duration allowed me to stop down the aperture for maximum DOF (pitfully shallow at life size) plus it also effectively stopped motion, be it mine or my subjects. Now, If my macro subject is static or a slow moving insect, then a tripod can be useful. I do use one for stacked images & general photography, just not for mobile insects.
Using a tripod surely has advantages. Especially with telephoto lenses with long focal ranges. Such as the Nikon Bridge P900 and DSLR lenses like Sigma's or Tamron's 150-600mm. I would need a tripod for either at longer focal ranges. My hands are not so steady anymore. I own 2 tripods, first one was very cheap, that I bought at B&H, and surprisingly worked well under certain conditions. It's my backup now.
Though this site does not render images particularly well, and I don't care to share EXIF data, I shot this hand held, unsupported, 600 5.6 ED IF AIS on Nikon DF yesterday afternoon after reading the initial post. The camera lens combination is around nine pounds.
to me it's about the "when do I need one". for landscapes and bracketing or hdr I take the tripod. for all other occasions I always bring my monopod along.
If you ask me I am going to say that a tripod is not an accessory it is a necessity.
My wife and I shoot mostly BIF hand held using a pistol grip on the long lenses...I have seen photographers acting like they are having seizures when trying to get a shot of a diving osprey using a tripod.
That being said there is always a heavy duty tripod nearby or in the trunk.
Totally agree with the post of Rongnongno.
Everyone talks about using a tripod for purposes of steadying the camera and lens... which, of course, is one of the main benefits.
What's often overlooked is that a tripod also can encourage you to approach your photos in a more thoughtful and considered manner. It can be useful by making you slow down and think about the shot, previsualize and plan more. This will usually lead to better results.
This doesn't mean that you don't put as much care and effort into shots without a tripod. But, if you're like me, you might fall into bad habits and changing it up with a tripod (or something else) can help break those.
Shooting in manual mode forces you to do the same...
amfoto1 wrote:
Everyone talks about using a tripod for purposes of steadying the camera and lens... which, of course, is one of the main benefits.
What's often overlooked is that a tripod also can encourage you to approach your photos in a more thoughtful and considered manner. It can be useful by making you slow down and think about the shot, previsualize and plan more. This will usually lead to better results.
This doesn't mean that you don't put as much care and effort into shots without a tripod. But, if you're like me, you might fall into bad habits and changing it up with a tripod (or something else) can help break those.
Everyone talks about using a tripod for purposes o... (
show quote)
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
quixdraw wrote:
Though this site does not render images particularly well, and I don't care to share EXIF data, I shot this hand held, unsupported, 600 5.6 ED IF AIS on Nikon DF yesterday afternoon after reading the initial post. The camera lens combination is around nine pounds.
Thanks for posting. I used to get shots of this quality too and was fed up with it. Not sharp, narrow depth of field, focused on wrong part of body. Put my Canon 80D with Sigma 150-600 on my tripod and results improved immediately and significantly. I am now proud of my new bird pictures. Not only did the tripod give me pictures without my shaking but I could switch to manual to freeze the bird's movements, get the depth of field I needed and focus on the right part of the bird without the camera bouncing around. With this body, I could go up to ISO 3200 without significant noise. I am a convert to tripods.
Just so we all know, there are several options between handholding and using a tripod ! - Like facial stabilization, bodypods, monopods, and higher ISO's/shutter speeds. For action photography/wide ranging subjects and/or un-controllable subjects, I will use a tripod only as a last resort - unless the weight of the camera/lens exceeds 10 lbs.
abc1234 wrote:
Thanks for posting. I used to get shots of this quality too and was fed up with it. Not sharp, narrow depth of field, focused on wrong part of body. Put my Canon 80D with Sigma 150-600 on my tripod and results improved immediately and significantly. I am now proud of my new bird pictures. Not only did the tripod give me pictures without my shaking but I could switch to manual to freeze the bird's movements, get the depth of field I needed and focus on the right part of the bird without the camera bouncing around. With this body, I could go up to ISO 3200 without significant noise. I am a convert to tripods.
Thanks for posting. I used to get shots of this q... (
show quote)
Figured that would be the case -- the shot is razor sharp, and exactly what I have been working toward. As mentioned in my post, the photo rendition on this site is not particularly good. The primary reason I don't post photos here anymore.
You are amazing to be able to garner so much (incorrect) info from a thumbnail. Best I've seen since the Great Karnack!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.