To tripod or not to tripod

In your personal experience, do you think you've missed more good shots by being tied to a tripod than you've ruined

by not using a tripod? Some photographers advocate using them at all times. I accept there are many situations

when a tripod is a must. I'm fairly dedicated to using one, but there are times when I get such a crick in my

creativity that I just have to pull the release and get on with it freehand. I'm sure there are shots I would have missed

otherwise. What else is IS for?

There is always a difference between non tripod and tripod. If you know what you are doing, the tripod should rarely be a problem.

 

Lynn (61 years in the business)

Hanna,

 

Looking at your gallery shows you have put a tripod to good use. I wouldn't worry about losing some quality by detaching your camera via the quick release. Any captured shot is worth more than any missed shot.

No I have ruined more shots by not being attached to a tripod. Course some of my photos where still ruined even tho I was attached to a tripod.***darn aperture***

Use a tripod when you need one. Don't use one when you don't. :)

 

In terms of missing shots, when I don't have a tripod, I don't look for shots that require one.

 

 

Eric

Well, for people with less steady hand than one wishes for and for shooting in the golden hour of landscape photography, a

tripod seems indispensable to me. Even then, sometimes shots don't turn out as sharp as I've wished for.

My hands shake terribly so I need a tripod most of the time. I found that I need to shoot at least a stop faster than the reciprocal of the focal length of a lens to get sharp hand-held shots. Since I shoot ISO 100 film often in dimly lit forests or overcast conditions I need the tripod.

A tripod is more about composition than stability. In landscape photography it is indispensable for placing the horizon,

balancing elements in a picture, or waiting for the right light.

Some shots need a tripod and some do not. One thing about a camera on a tripod is that it will come right off with the flick of a lever. I shoot a lot of scenics so a tripod is a very handy item to have.

Most of my shots are hand held, when I travel I usually do carry-on for most flights, My tripod stays home,but there are times when a tripod would have been very helpful.

Birds in flight hand held. Birds on a perch and low light; tripod, mirror lockup, remote shutter release. Sports, monopod to prevent aching arms with heavy lenses and a bit of sharpness. Studio, tripod sometimes, and others I like to walk around with the camera. Depends on what I am doing with the subject. A tripod is always better if practical to use.

I go for 1/250 sec if at all posible and never use a tripod. Well, maybe a small plastic table top tripod once in a long time. You're always going to use some shots, either way.

Nope. I can't think of single potentially great shot I've missed by having the camera on a tripod and I can think of plenty that I've actually made that would have been a lot better if I had used a tripod.

In my experience I've gotten shots that I would otherwise have missed if I hadn't had the tripod. On the other hand I've don't recall ever missing a shot because I was using a tripod. After all, I can take the camera off the tripod easily enough and shoot hand held if that is whats needed. The tripod isn't going to get up and walk away (not where I'm shooting at any rate) so I'm not usually worried about leaving it right were its at.

I photograph landscapes, and I feel naked without a tripod. If I did street photography, I wouldn't use one.

A tripod is best when you have the option. It's not always convenient of course. I can't imagine doing candid street

photography with a tripod, but when a tripod is an option, use it.

 

When I don't want to haul around a real tripod I have a lightweight "digital" tripod which goes up to about 5ft tall but

isn't very stable (see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/velbon/velbon_343e.html). However it's still

better than no tripod at all. Second to a tripod is an Image Stabilized lens. They help, but not as much as a tripod!

Depends. If you're talking about static subjects - landscapes, architecture, etc. - it's usually best to use a tripod. But I've done both without a tripod and can't see that sharpness suffered even when enlarged or magnified.

 

For event or PJ style photography I seldom want to bother with a tripod or monopod. I've missed lots of shots while fiddling with tripods and monopods in those settings. The only time I've found a tripod invaluable was to document live theatre performances, where I shot from the tech booth area using a camera in a blimp. Since I was in a static location and had a full view of the stage with very limited risks of missing a shot, the tripod helped. Otherwise, it's a nuisance.

while i was waiting for the gator to jump at the heron, that tripod sure was nice, waited over an hour, neither one of

them budged, patience is not a virture of mine, sometimes tripods are nice to carry around, always have a remote

attached to the camera when I have the tripod.

Well, a great and varied response to my question. Technically a shot will always be better with a tripod, but sometimes the creativity and spontaneity is lost when I'm tied to it. I suppose it depends on one's style, and physical tolerance. I don't mind crawling around to get into places where it's difficult to manoevre my tripod but I do mind standing still, with arched neck setting up a shot that disappears while I'm doing it, or where I could get just the angle I want freehand. I guess it's all down to discipline; something I have to work at.

As the poster writes in her biblio: " .. it is fun to look through a lens .. " So I assume that she uses (D)SLRs. They all give

problems with mirror slap. Now with a rangefinder : none of that. So the answer depends on the equipment you use. With LF I

would not be caught without my tripod; just too clumsy otherwise. Same with macro work and super long lenses (at least a

monopod!).

With the growing improvement in IS technology, I have become untethered from the tripod. I am more of a spontaneous shooter on the go ... not sitting for an hour. The IS has allowed me to pull off shots here-to-fore not possible for me without the Tripod.

 

As Bob & otheres said ... if possible, the Tripod will offer superior results with static subjects. With moving subjects, i think it gets in the way.

There are places where you shouldn't use a tripod. For example, don't carry a tripod into Red Square and put a camera on it, you will get the attention of the police. The Louvre and others in Paris allow photos (without a flash!) but again don't try to take a tripod in. If you visit the Taos Pueblo with a camera such as a Leica they will say "You must be a professional!" and remind you not to sell any photos without their permission. They may even ban tripods. One must remember that the Pueblo is their home and respect their privacy.

I use a tripod whenever it's appropriate, and IS or other bracing when it's not. I'm learning how to spherical panos, and must use a tripod for consistency unless I plan to spend all day at the computer stitching (which I don't). also at sunrise/sunset and twilight I use a tripod religiously. For HDR I use one religiously. I just have to remember to shut the IS off when on the tripod. That's cost me more shots than anything else in the last year/year-and-a-half.

 

IS is great when I can use it, which is also often, but I know a tripod will hold a camera steadier than I can. With LF, a tripod is a given. With IS and enough light, with ISO cranked and PP considered, I use that when a tripod is impractical or prohibited. Then I try a monopod. if that's prohibited, I use the best holding technique I can muster, and go for it. I seldom get unusable shots that way. Handheld w/IS is a must at events, concerts, fairs, amusement parks, etc. Then I use the best technique I can (elbows locked, relaxed, 'follow' the shot, shoot while breathing out, highest ISO possible under the circumstances, lean against a wall or lamp post, etc.). I tend to shoot aperture-preferred, and crank the ISO and try to get an accommodating shutter speed, and IS is great for candids, quick shots, uobtrusiveness, etc.

 

But when all is said and done, I like my tripod. It's obtrusive, but it's rock-steady. I'm OK with it, though, because when I'm not shooting DSLR, I'm shooting LF. I'm used to it, anf I kinda feel naked without it.

 

For resistant places, explaining our purpose and asking permission goes a long way to getting permission to use a tripod or a monopod.