danielleetaylor Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm Do you find you use a tripod less with digital? This article struck a nerve with me and I personally don't think it's very good advice, especially for beginners. I find I'm more careful about composure and take more time to confirm focus and experiment with exposure when the DSLR is on a tripod. And yes, I find the percentage of really sharp and detailed shots goes up on the tripod. Even in bright light, even with IS. Maybe Ken is spending too much time with ultra-wide angles that have extreme DoF? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I've never taken much stock in his opinions myself - he more into sounding controversial than anything else with this one. If the article included a specifics of a detailed study I'd be more inclined to feel it was credible, but as it stands, it's just him giving his opinion... - Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Perhaps I should learn to spell.. My post should read like this: I've never taken much stock in his opinions myself - he's more into sounding controversial than anything else with this one. If the article had included the specifics of a detailed study, I'd be more inclined to feel it was credible, but as it stands it's just him giving his opinion... - Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I think Digital has been way too busy Killing film and filters, to also kill tripods, I think it only wounded tripods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_boutilier_brown1 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Personally I use a tripod for almost all the images I make, digital or not. I find it hard to compose accurately without a tripod, and if I am perfecting the exposure for an image with a histogram check, having the camera on a tripod ensures that the composition doesn't shift while I work. And this of course leaves out multi-frame stitching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scot Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Those of us who can't afford anti-shake technology find tripods as useful as ever.... --Scot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Rockwell is a gadfly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyjo Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 If you are as unsteady as I am, tripods will always be a necessity until they perfect ISO 102800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akajohndoe Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The tripod will be obsolete when the Earth is perfectly flat and the law of gravity has been repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_cochran Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 He clearly doesn't do a lot of night photography with long telephotos. <p> VR and IS don't eliminate camera shake. At best, they reduce it enough to give you a few stops. That's often enough to be very useful, especially in the daytime, but it's not always enough for all situations. With long enough lenses in low enough light, there's still a big advantage to a tripod. <p> The thing that a tripod does is turn that "barely achievable" shot into an easy catch without compromise (at least assuming the subject isn't moving). Freedom to use multi-minute exposures means you no longer have to compromise on aperture or ISO, nor do you have to accept a "not really noticable" level of motion blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akajohndoe Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I just fully read the article referenced in the first post and have changed my tune. I now am convinced that it is encumbent upon us all to propogate and pertetuate the position expounded by Ken Rockwell to anyone and everyone who is within listening range or reading range, which admittedly, is for all practical purposes everyone on the planet with the internet behind us. The reason for this change in belief by yours truely is the realization that if everyone else accepts this as gospel and foresakes their tripods then the general quality of images that has been proliferating in the marketplace will deteriorate correspondingly and those of us who retain our tripods and the ability to produce quality images will once again have a means of earning a living and the quality of images will actually improve. Just remember to tell everyone else to dump their tripods! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
znabal Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 After I went digital, I found I needed a second, more transportable tripod. With digital, I'm way more likely to take photos at night and multiple exposures for HDR usage than I ever was with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I never used a tripod so much as after acquiring our first digicam. Noise at anything above base ISO, puny flash and slow maximum aperture as soon as you zoom in at all forced the use of long shutter speeds for quality images - and a tripod. Also, no manufacturer has come up with an image stabilisation system that handles natural light exposures for macro work - the IS/VR becomes ineffective, and anyway does nothing for changes in focus distance (and neither does the camera's focus system). Perhaps Mr. Rockwell likes to hand hold a 600 f/4 (no VR on a Nikon version, either)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronaldo_r Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 <i>"...Digital has been way too busy Killing film and filters, to also kill tripods, I think it only wounded tripods..."</i> </p> bravo, i'm still laughing:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_needham Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I agree with his advice not to use apertures smaller than f/10 or f/11 with an APS-C DSLR, but there is no doubt in my mind (or to my eyes) that my tripod shots with my DSLR are almost always sharper than hand held shots. It's pretty easy to see at 100% magnification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham john miles Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I have a Nikon DSLR and I use it mostly with a Tripod. I don't like using flashes and so the tripod allows me more latitude in low light situations. Plus it's cool for using Nikon Camera Control and taking pictures through a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolefan32 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Killed the tripod? I don't think so. Sure, digital (and image stablization, too) has lessened the times that a tripod is absolutely necessary, which is a good thing because often the less gear one has to haul, the better. But there's limits to just how far digital and IS/VR can take things before a tripod is required, and as some have noted, a tripod is still a good way to get optimum results even under optimum circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcooper Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Rockwell has a lot of good points, and maybe for a lot of DSLR photography, the tripod is really of limited or no use FOR HIS STYLE OF SHOOTING (look at his galleries...is this your 'thing'?). For mine, with HDR, long exposures with ND filters, panoramas, and night shots I still need mine. He did get me thinking, though - I could probably use it less, with VR on some lenses, and going back to the basics of holding steady and following the shot (elbows in, breathe out, brace against a tree or wall...), like I used to do before I could afford a tripod. Got lots of sharp shots back then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 To each his own I guess, but I thought the original Kodak Brownie killed the tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I came into professional photography late in life doing all types of newspaper photography. Logistics and the necessity for speed kept me from using a tripod. I did about twenty weddings a year and used a tripod for the formal pictures to support medium format cameras. I generally used flash fill for insurance. I shoot wildlife on the wing. Hard to use a tripod making an ascending swing through a180 degree arc. You haven't lived until you have had a tripod fall over in mud with a Bronica on it during an outdoor Springtime wedding. Wiped the mud off and continued shooting. Seriously, having grown up hunting, I like to track just like I used to with a shotgun. I get pretty good pictures that way. I was also encultured to work fast while working for the newspaper. The shot may get away while you fumble around trying to position a tripod. Yes you can a sharper picture if the subject doesn't have flapping wings. I got used to a monopod during football games mainly because my arms got so tired. It inhibited some shots. So I think a tripod is great for landscapes where you can languidly contemplate nature but for much else I have not used one very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now