So what about Tripods in a high ISO World?

Like nearly every other photographer I have several tripods - my Veteran Welt Safe Lock, not as stable as some, but the fastest to deploy that I have ever used. Then there is my Leica Tabletop - for what it is, very solid with reasonable sized cameras. Several years ago I bought a clean used Manfrotto 3221 and a 3421 Gimbal for it - that combo and a 3245 monopod with Giotto ball head for a couple of big old lenses , the biggest a Nikkor 600 f5.6 ED. Reason for all of this was a wonderful site for Eagles, which I called the Eagle Tree. Well, about a year ago, that blew down in a storm, since then, I have only used the 3221 for a couple of moon shots with the big 600. Interesting thing is that my hand held Moon Shots have been virtually indistinguishable from those done with the tripod. There are certainly times when a tripod is essential, but I sure don't find myself using one very much, and over the last 4 vacations to photo intense spots, I can count the number I have seen carried on the fingers of one hand, and not a single one deployed for use.

One moon with tripod, one without freestanding.

What are your opinions / experiences?

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

I found that a really heavy tripod I bought for using on my 500mm lenses with telextenders gave better results than handholding even at 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a second handheld.

 

Also, as ISO goes up, so does noise. I'm tolerant of noise (and used to be tolerant of grain), but there are limits.

I've got three - two Induros (one large carbon fiber and a smaller aluminum one) and one Gitzo (for travel). Can't say they get used all that much - mostly when there's no other way to get the image (long exposure). Most of my tele work is hand held - though on occasion the large tripod with a gimbal head comes in handy.

I still prefer to use the lowest ISO possible, and sometimes that does mean a tripod. I did just recently "upgrade" to a 70-200 f/2.8 VR(I) from my old 80-200 f/2.8(I'm keeping the old lens since it's friendlier to the FM/FM2/F3/F4 and not worth a lot), but I even spent the extra money to buy one from KEH that included a Kirk foot in place of the standard Nikon one for easier tripod mounting. For those not familiar with it, basically the tripod ring on this lens is design such that the foot can easily be detached, and the Kirk foot integrates an Arca-Swiss type dovetail in its base so you don't have to use an intermediary QR plate.

 

I find that with good glass, I can still often see the difference between hand-holding and tripod mounting on cameras like my D800 at shutter speeds in the range of 1/2xFL to 1/4xFL. As good as VR is, if I'm going to get really picky I can usually still tell handheld+VR to tripod(no VR) in that shutter speed range and down into the range where VR is usually effective(say 1/30 at 135mm on my 70-200 VR). Rarely do I do anything that requires THAT much detail, but few folks ever find themselves wishing for LESS detail when it comes right down to it.

 

Of course, I also shoot film, and some of my film cameras beg for a tripod. Hasselblads handle reasonably well off a tripod, but IMO are still best when used on one with mirror prefire. I've hand-held my RB67s, but I tend to only want to use 1/400(fastest shutter speed available) regardless of the FL of lens. Speed Graphics are designed to be handheld, but I've never used mine off a tripod, and I can't imagine hand holding other types of sheet film cameras.

 

My tripods consist of a set of low end Manfrotto CF legs with an Arca-Swiss B1 on top(I want to get a set of Gitzo legs in the next year), a venerable Marcioni Tilt-All that I use for a lot of work with my RB67 and 4x5s, and then a 20lb aluminum monstrosity that I bought for LF work but have only used a few times because it's just too big and frankly overkill even for 4x5.

I seldom use my tripod, but it comes in very handy when trying to get a composition level, not slightly tilted as is very possible when hand-holding. I shoot film exclusively, and every one of my cameras has a bubble level attached to the hot shoe to help in leveling the tripod/camera.

I own but don't really use tripods. Dissolving the related logistics challenges has been on my agenda for about a decade. Am I over inflating a minor issue here? - IDK. - I own the kind of tripods I'd leave in a car's trunk too, but cars aren't my thing at all.

For somewhat casual tripod use I want kind of a saddle shoe construction to mount on my little Honda to hold a moderate weight tripod standing upright resting on the left passenger's peg and something else on my cargo pedal bike, to hold the serious Manfrotto. While I could of course bungee or ratchet belt any tripod I own on a motorbike's passenger seat, to move it over land; doing so is too much hassle for maybe(!) taking a night shot in town on the way back home from work, if mood & weather aren't too bad.

 

Like everybody above: (Insanely) high ISO will not cut my cake on it's own. Sure, I tried night and concert shots hand held at ISO 10K, f2, gun stock attached but considering the noise and shutter speeds in use they were desperate happy snapping.

 

Sometimes I pondered splurging on carbon fiber legs but either got distracted by bigger needs or had a bright moment to realize: They won't solve my big issue. The backpack is already borderline stuffed with some gear staying at home and legs I'd like would peak out and ruin my stealthiness. (IMHO neighborhoods don't need to know in which tent or behind which plywood door inside a block of flats unattended probably nice cameras are waiting to get stolen.)

 

I really want to drop back on my first not really great but still portable (I took it on hikes as a teen) Cullmann aluminium tripod for the night shots at the home town. If somebody steals it out of the ugly saddle bag thing, I am planning to sew, I won't cry.

It depends.

 

When I shoot a long tennis session, with a LONG lens, I would rather have the camera+lens on a tripod, so my arm is not so tired and sore.

 

I also found that I can follow the players better with a long lens on a gimbal head than handheld. The gimbal head is smoother with the LONG lenses.

 

I shot a tennis game where it was windy enough, that I could NOT hold myself steady. I wished I had brought my tripod. It may not be STEADY in the wind, but it would be a lot steadier than me.

 

For fireworks, absolutely critical for those multi-second exposures.

I almost always use my Manfrotto 475 tripod with 405 geared head in my studio--it's overkill for the DSLRs and moderate length macro primes that I use most of the time, but when I take time to carefully compose and light an image, I don't want to worry about the camera shifting position or shaking. I hauled 4x5 Toyo monorail and equivalent Manfrotto tripod around for landscapes for years, so I'm used to heavy tripods and prefer them. On vacations, a Leitz tabletop with ball head is all that I take, and I don't use it very often.

Sandy, I use a tripod all the time. It's like an easel and forces me to slow down and think about composition and framing with any lens but especially when shooting landscapes. Any timed exposure requires a tripod. I know that while I can often get acceptable images hand held, I will get more consistent results with a tripod. For macro I can use it to help set the shot up and it will allow me to wait and maintain composition while the wind dies down. A tripod is critical for focus stacking. A tripod allows use of the lowest ISO permissible by law. For wing shooting with a gimbal head a tripod allows for smooth weightless panning. I recently purchased a Tamron 100-400 for hand held shooting but if I can carry bigger better glass I will and that means a tripod. I will not usually carry a tripod on vacation but when I travel for work and plan to do some shooting, I will pack a series ii Gitzo and Kirk BH1 ball head if I am carrying a light slow long telephoto and a series iii with a Kirk BH1 or Arca Swiss B1 ball head and a Wimberley side kick if I am using f4 glass. The 600 f4 I have gets a series V Gitzo with a full size Wimberley action head. I have a d3200 in my truck and yes there is an inexpensive Induro tripod with a small Kirk ball head on the floor. If I am doing studio shooting and I'm using fast glass and I control the studio light and will benefit from maneuverability since I am close to the subject, I will loose the tripod. I think the key in most cases is to have a tripod and a good ball head or action head that will bring the eye piece to eye level while standing erect so that I am relaxed and not stooping. Again I think you can get good results hand held but for me a tripod makes life much better. Additionally it is easier to have one available at all times and decide not to use it. Good hunting.

I use tripods almost 100% of the time for video. I need a steady camera with smooth transitions between clips. I use tripods less for still photography than in the recent past, due to high ISO, optical and in-body image stavilization. I do shoot a lot of bracketed sequences for HDR and multiple shots for stitched panorama. Both HDR and panos can be shot by hand, but you always loose something to cropping, due to variations from frame to frame. Image stabilization is no substitute for a tripod if you want sharpness at the pixel level. Like many things, it's better to have it an not need it than to need it and not have it. I carry a substantial tripod when traveling, a Gitzo #3 with an RRS BH-55 ball head. It fits in a checked suitcase with minor disassembly (remove center section and head).

 

Long exposures, including starry landscapes, require a tripod.

I still use a tripod but not as often as I used to. I have three; a small Gorillapod that I bring on holidays (lately, I have realised that it can also double as a light stand for fixing an Elinchrom head to a tree). I have a medium sized tripod with a heavy duty camera head for landscape, night and closeup or tilt/shift work. The third is a heavy duty tripod with a gimbal head that I use for my super telephoto lens when I shoot birds. (That also doubles as a tripod for my spotting scope when I go birdwatching. The gimbal head is great for spotting scopes, but I have only met one fellow birdwatcher who uses a gimbal head for supporting their spotting scope.)

 

I also have a heavy duty monopod with a tilt head that I use occasionally with longer glass or raised fully extended above my head when I want a different perspective with a wide-angle lens.

The gimbal head is great for spotting scopes, but I have only met one fellow birdwatcher who uses a gimbal head for supporting their spotting scope.)

 

I've seen two or three in hides at Cley, usually with cameras attached to super telephotos as well, which they can swap - plus a long-suffering wife to carry it all!:oops:

Tripod use can make the whole shooting experience far more relaxed - after the strain of lugging the tripod about of course.

 

You set up the composition, stand upright, or sit down, as you wish, and wait for the light or subject to perform. When it looks good you push the release and the job's done.

 

For formal portraits a tripod also allows direct interaction with the sitter, and not a mumbled instruction from behind a camera.

 

The one exception is when photographing a solar eclipse or the moon. Those celestial bodies will race across the frame without constant checking and re-framing!

The one exception is when photographing a solar eclipse or the moon. Those celestial bodies will race across the frame without constant checking and re-framing!

 

Absolutely, as we found out.

:rolleyes:

For formal portraits a tripod also allows direct interaction with the sitter, and not a mumbled instruction from behind a camera.

 

That is something that I still remember from when I was a kid.

The studio photographer would set up his sheet film camera, then come out to the front and side holding a bulb release, and actually talk and work with the subject.

In my mind, I can't see how that kind of communication with the subject can happen unless the camera is on a tripod.

It is something that I have not seen duplicated with hand held 35mm or digital.

 

I guess I'm just old fashioned, or more critical.

It is something that I have not seen duplicated with hand held 35mm or digital.

 

- There's absolutely nothing to prevent using a tripod for formal portraits with any camera.

 

The waist level finder of a 'blad or (Ergh!) TLR lends itself to such a way of working, as does a tilting LCD screen. A 35mm film camera - not so much.

The older I get (in my 60s now) the harder it is to carry a tripod. I can still do it for short distances, but only because it's a Gitzo carbon fiber one. I only carry it around when I have to (like shooting a very slow film or a digital with bad high ISO performance). For other occasions I bought a camera with good High ISO performance and have mostly been going without. I did bring it to Cade's Cove though because the tripod can ride in the car and come out when needed (which is more a matter of traffic than shot, but that too). I think for landscape shots, which is what I like, it is still needed, even with high ISO cameras, but I just have physical limitations these days.

Point of fact that resonates through many of these posts - a tripod slows things down. Some may find that good - at my age, there are enough things that I do more slowly than in past days - I don't need another one. To be fair,since many of us don't use our tripods much, most likely practice and familiarization would add some smoothness and speed to the operation. For the times a tripod is necessary, mine will continue to take up space.

I have several tripods, and select the appropriate one for the shoot.

The heavy Bogen tripod is only used for the 4x5 view camera, within 50ft of the car, or where I can carry it in a cart. I tried carrying it ONCE, never again, toooo heavy.

The travel tripod was selected just because it could fit into the suitcase.

My regular tripod is a lighter CF tripod than the aluminum one that I used to use. Logic is, the tripod you use, is the one you carry. As with others, age is taking it's toll, and lighter is better.

 

I took a tripod on vacation, and I was able to duplicate a night shot I made decades ago with a tripod, but this time without the tripod. Back then, I used either Fujichrome ASA-100 film or Ektachrome 64. This year, I used my Olympus EM1 at ISO 4000. With the digital, I did not have to bracket blindly as I did with film, not knowing which exposure would turn out. I could see and adjust the exposure in the EVF. And being able to adjust the ISO on the fly was indeed nice, compared to ONE film speed of the film in the camera.

 

Even the heads come into the selection process. I only use my heavy 3-way pan head on the heavy Bogen. I normally use a lighter 3-way pan head. Or if I am carrying for any distance, the even lighter ball head. The gimbal comes out for long shots with a LONG lens, but only if I can carry all my gear in a cart. The gimbal is a hassle to set up.

I have a cheap tripod that will fit into my checked baggage crossways. I have taken it along on occasion, but the old fashioned "bean bag" works very well and you can even get the "beans" locally when you get there. ;)

 

If you want to carry a tripod, some shoulder-length straps are handy. Some camera bags have straps to carry a tripod

After reading Ken Rockwell's ideas on tripods I thought all you gun toting Americans didn't need tripods ;)

After reading Ken Rockwell's ideas on tripods I thought all you gun toting Americans didn't need tripods ;)

You've mixed up tripods and bipods! Actually I prefer a bench rest.

After reading Ken Rockwell's ideas on tripods I thought all you gun toting Americans didn't need tripods ;)

 

We need the equivalent of IS/VR for my rifle :)

It’s true that nowadays, with high camera sensitivity and in camera IS, tripods are superfluous in many situations. Still, discarding tripods for high ISO is a trade off between detail, color rendition vs flexibility, efficiency. In some genres including landscape and fine art portraiture, subtle details or colors are proportionately more important than other genre, so low ISO is still desirable. In landscapes for instance, many of the ‘magic’ happen in low light, under storm cover or high wind. Under such conditions, even higher ISOs can be in the ‘risky’ category for hand held.

 

I do think, the definition of low ISO, the limit below which, the ‘diminishing returns’ are zero for practical purposes, that limit has changed considerably. For a full frame DSLR, that limit is probably reached below ISO 800, whereas in the film days, that was probably ISO 100-200, depending on film type. 10 years back, any popular viewing spot at a tourist location would be covered by what I can only describe as a jungle of tripods. Nowadays, they have been replaced by people taking selfies with their phones.

We need the equivalent of IS/VR for my rifle :)

It certainly seems possible from a technological standpoint. Surely military snipers have thought of this.