Tripod vs Hand Held

<p>Hi folks,</p>

<p>I rarely use a tripod. I hate the things and only use one when it is absolutely essential. However, I have been wondering just how much difference using a tripod actually makes to the sharpness of an image. The common rule when handholding is to use a shutter speed equivalent (or higher) to your focal length i.e. 1/200 sec for a 200mm lens on a FF body. Of course, the higher the shutter speed, the less chance of camera shake.</p>

<p>Obviously, if I get a reasonably sharp image by handholding a 50mm lens at a slow 1/15 sec, then the same shot taken with a tripod will usually be a little sharper.</p>

<p>My question is: Does a tripod makes any obvious difference in sharpness compared to hand held shots that were taken following the focal length rule? i.e. If I take a hand held shot with a 28mm lens at 1/30sec (assuming I take the usual amount of care trying to hold the camera steady), will it be as equally sharp as one taken using a tripod?</p>

<p>Naturally, there will be varience depending on how steady the camera is being held. But generally, would I notice a huge difference if I were to dust off my tripod more often? I do have IS lenses and love them but let's assume I don't have IS for the purpose of this question.</p>

<p>You're leaving out an important part: aperture. You might be able to get a handheld 50mm shot at 1/15th, but at what aperture? Is that with the lens wide open so that you can manage that shutter speed? That lens will be far, far sharper at f/8, but then you'd be well over a 1 second exposure. On a tripod, that slower exposure with the stopped-down lens will produce a much, much sharper image. Um, provided you're not talking about moving subjects!<br /><br />Even stopping down a <em>bit</em> will make a big difference in sharpness, especially at the margins of the frame. But you give up shutter speed. Enter the tripood. </p>

<p>I suppose one way to think of it is this: with the tripod, insofar as camera stability is concerned, the shot will be as sharp as possible; without the tripod it will generally be less sharp, but with care you can often make it quite sharp.</p>

<p>Not quite a "yes/no" answer, but I'm afraid that's how it is.</p>

<p>The 1/focal length "rule" (which is actually 1/(FL x crop factor)...) is only a rule of thumb. There are a ton of variables: your own steadiness, your level of carefulness, the circumstances of the shot, sensor/film format, how critical sharpness is in a particular shot...</p>

<p>If your goal is to achieve the sharpest image you can of a given shot, then use a tripod when possible. And pay attention to the other elements that also play into sharpness: lens selection, choice of aperture, care in focus, use of MLU and a remote release, and so forth.</p>

<p>Note that I'm not saying that you cannot produce sharp (in terms of camera motion blur) photographs without a tripod. It is possible, especially if you are very careful. I have hand held shots that hold up to printing at quite large sizes - shots that I made deliberately and with a great deal of care. I also find that if I do a series of such shots that they will be of uneven quality in this regard.</p>

<p>Finally, if you mostly make smallish prints or share photographs on the web the sharpness issue is less critical. Going back to my own experience with hand held photography, it is not unusual to find that a hand held shot works great in a 600 pixel width jpg, works OK in a letter size print, but beyond that the problems show up.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Your question: "Does a tripod makes any obvious difference in sharpness compared to hand held shots that were taken following the focal length rule?"</p>

<p>The answer is yes. Compare it for yourself. I compared identical tripod-supported vs hand-held shots with my dinky little G7 and the difference in image quality was astounding, even when shooting faster than the "focal length rule" (which is more of a rough guideline than a rule...)</p>

The answer is Yes. The "it depends" is based on whether or not a tripod is possible or makes sense for the picture. For example, you would look, well different, taking street photography using a tripod. However, taking waterfall pictures without one? Why not use one?

<p>I shunned my tripod for four years (I've had a camera for four years). It is now part of my carry along gear wherever I go. Why? I missed a shot of a lifetime in Geneva and vowed that it would not happen again. If I had the tripod, I would have "nailed" the image of two mating Grebes forming a perfect heart shape as they came together and the backdrop was a rainbow created by a fountain in Lake Geneva. </p>

<p>During recent testing, I was amazed at how much better the images could be in the right situation. Sure, for bright light and wider apertures, you will have enough shutter speed but the "perfect light" situations are not there often enough for me. </p>

<p>I am a born again tripod user.... Here is one of the blurred images that make me a convert.....</p><div></div>

<p>I mainly use a tripod for macro and product shots. Allows me to compose the scene and make tiny adjustments that stay put. Plus I can stop down for increased DOF and use a slow shutter speed without fear of camera shake. The only other situation I normally use a tripod is for night photography of skylines, moonlit vistas, etc. Obviously F8 at 2 seconds won't cut it hand held.</p>

<p>With all that said, I use tripods less than my film days simply because digital high ISO 800 & 1600 are actually pretty good.</p>

<p>I think the answer for most people who have looked at this is yes. But you need to see whether it makes a difference to you . How do you use your photographs? If all you do is view them at 900 x 600 on screen or make 7" x 5" prints, and you're happy with what you're getting, carry on. If OTOH you want to make 20" x 16" prints for your wall, sell to a decent stock agency, or you just consider yourself hypercritical , then you need to run a with/without test and view at 100% or better, make two prints one with and one without tripod and see whether you think the difference is worthwhile. It probably would be for me, but I may not hate tripods as much as you do.</p>

<p>I don't like tripods either, but they do make a difference. Even at 1/1000 sec with my 200mm 2.8, I occasionally lose shots hand held. A monopod can really help as well.</p>

<p><em>"You're leaving out an important part: aperture. You might be able to get a handheld 50mm shot at 1/15th, but at what aperture?"</em></p>

<p>Matt, I am well aware that stopping down can increase sharpness. But my question is not about aperture. It's about the difference between tripod and handheld at a given shutter speed.</p>

<p><em>"I am a born again tripod user.... Here is one of the blurred images that make me a convert...."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Mark, with all due respect, I would say the problem with your shot is the focus being off rather than camera shake.</p>

<p>Thanks for your answers everyone. I have very steady hands and like working handheld. Even for landscape shots when I have all the time in the world, I still avoid the tripod unless essential. Sounds like I will have to do a few test shots and compare.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, with all due respect, I would say the problem with your shot is the focus being off rather than camera shake.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+ 100.</p>

<p>That's an OOF shot, not a camera shake shot.</p>

<p>No matter what speed your focal plane shutter is set to, a tripod prevents image distortion due to camera movement. Even when set to 1/8000, it still takes at least 1/250 of a second for most focal plane shutters to cover 24mm of the image plane.</p>

 

<p>I suspect most of us prefer to handhold when we can. It just "feels" more like being a photographer than fussin with all the gear (oh, wait, photography is all about fussing with gear right?!). I am finding that as I have gotten older, I cannot handhold as well as I used to, and that means that it's really difficult to use telephoto lenses handheld unless I can really get the shutter speed up there!<br>

Even a monopod can help a lot.</p>

<p>Set your camera to make jpegs (not raw). Take a hand-held exposure of some object, and then capture the same object using a tripod. Download the two jpegs to your computer. Which file is larger? That will be the one with more detail. Jpeg compression shrinks a blurry image a lot, but images with sharp detail are harder to shrink. Of course you have to repeat this experiment several times to make sure you get consistent results.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of sports, and pics of my kids playing...so for those, I do not use a tripod. Not practical, but for anything else, I absolutely do if I can. I also frequently use the 2 sec timer to reduce shake (got to get a shutter release some day!). I would think you'd have to have ideal conditions to shoot at 1/15 handheld and not have some degree of blur. </p>

<p>By using a tripod, you are slowing down, taking your time to focus accurately, leveling the horizon, carefully setting exposure.</p>

<p>Suppose you are hiking and come to a great vista. Photographer "A" sees the nice scenery, snaps a few quick photos and is off to the next destination. Photographer "B" probably arrives a few minutes later, sets up his tripod, carefully searches the composition, maybe shoots a few photos using the mirror lockup and self tiimer, but hangs around for awhile. The clouds and lighting change, shadows, improve etc., as does more photo opportunities.</p>

<p>Naturally photographer "B" has better odds of getting better, and more of a variety to his or her photos.</p>

<p>But, the photographs may not even be the most important thing in this case. Photographer "A" may well have tunnel vision. Sure, he may be seeing good photo opportunities. But, even more important, photographer "B" has taken his time...observed the changing light, heard perhaps a half-dozen species of birds singing around him. He has seen and heard things photographer "A" was totally unaware of. Photographer "A" has isolated himself from the environment, while photogrqpher "B" has allowed himself to become part of the environment.</p>

<p>There have been many times when I dragged a tripod on a five mile mountain hike. I get to the "lookout", set a spell, but not really find much that I wish to photograph. Photographer "A" having not taken any photos may consider the walk a waste of time. Photographer "B" will come back with good memories whether he or she takes any photos or not.</p>

<p>I am certainly not suggesting that someone with a tripod will enjoy the outdoors (in this example) more because you are using a tripod. What I am suggesting is, simply being slowed by the use of a triopd is not such an awful thing. No need to avoid at all costs.</p>

<p>Looking at two of John Shaw's books, he states: "if you want to improve the image quality of photographs, the best single accessory you can buy is a sturdy, well-made tripod". Another book he simply states "buy a good tripod, and use it faithfully". Both those books were published before IS or VR lenses became available. However, my guess is that he does approve of IS or VR lenses, but I bet he still stands by those statements he made in his book.</p>

<p>This is not in any way putting down these lenses. Often a tripod is impractical, but I still believe in John's statements.</p>

 

<p>Yes, it is oof. I do believe that had I had a proper mount (400mm, hand held on a 40D) I would have been better able to manage the shot. It was a classic case of doing everything wrong.... Not prepared, IS set wrong, handheld, slow shutter speed. My very bad.</p>

<p>Fair enough, Mark - but for the purposes of a balanced discussion, I use a 40D and 100-400mm hand-held at 400mm pretty much all the time - tell me if these are sharp:</p>

<p><a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/rook2f.jpg">Rook</a> , <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/bluetit1f.jpg">Blue tit</a> , <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/0136b7a1.jpg">Mute swan</a> , <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/stonechat2f.jpg"></a> <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/turnstone15f.jpg">Turnstone</a> , <a href="http://keith593.diinoweb.com/files/My%20WebDrop/starling%2011f.jpg">Starling</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/carrion%20crow%201f.jpg">Carrion crow</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/carrion%20crow%202xff.jpg">Carrion crow</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/canada%20goose%205f.jpg">Canada goose</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/mandrill%202.jpg">Mandrill monkey</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/mute%20swan%201af.jpg">Mute swan</a> , <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/knot%201f.jpg">Knot</a> ...</p>

<p>I've got many hundreds more, these were just to hand - and before anyone says it, they're sharp printed and at far bigger sizes than this too..</p>

<p>I'll take the mobility and spontaneity made available by hand-holding (assuming IS and good hand-holding technique, which I believe I have) over the supposed sharpness benefits of tripods any day.</p>

<p>Jamie, I started using a tripod for nearly anything that doesn't move (and for quite a few that do, too). My "hit" rate on really sharp photos is nearly 100% on the tripod...not quite so good handheld. As Kerry says above, I think the real reason is that I'm much more careful to ensure the focus is right before the shutter releases. After all, if I'm going carry and use it, may as well take full advantage. And when I can't use a tripod, I nearly always carry along my lightweight monopod. </p>

<p>Thanks folks,</p>

<p>Like Keith, when shooting moving subjects like wildlife or sports etc I avoid the tripod at all costs as I like the freedom handholding gives. If i'm staked out in one position for a while I may use a bean bag, but that's it.</p>

<p>This question really arose because I was thinking of the static photography I do. I have recently started photographing items and places of local interest that are fast disappearing (old buildings, military facilities etc). I know that most other photographers would have used a tripod (especially for the interior shots) but I persevered with hand holding... widening the aperture and increasing the ISO just to get a fast enough shutter speed.</p>

<p>I think I've come to the conclusion that I need to make more effort to carry the pod. I know a lot of you appreciate the slow methodical approach a tripod gives but I think that's one reason why I don't bother with one... it slows me down and I prefer to be on the move to find the next shot.</p>

<p>If I go somewhere to specifically take a landscape picture I will usually take the pod as I know I will probably just take that one shot and head back home. I can live with the extra 10 minutes of messing around.</p>

<p>I really must do a test to convince myself. I'll take a few shots hand held and a few with pod and see what comes of it.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1506870">Kerry Grim</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Feb 22, 2009; 04:09 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>By using a tripod, you are slowing down, taking your time to focus accurately, leveling the horizon, carefully setting exposure.</em><br>

<em>Suppose you are hiking and come to a great vista. Photographer "A" sees the nice scenery, snaps a few quick photos and is off to the next destination. Photographer "B" probably arrives a few minutes later, sets up his tripod, carefully searches the composition, maybe shoots a few photos using the mirror lockup and self tiimer, but hangs around for awhile. The clouds and lighting change, shadows, improve etc., as does more photo opportunities.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes. But, no.</p>

<p>I generally shoot landscapes with a tripod. But I've also gotten some of my best images without a tripod. If you have the time and are working in the slow and careful mode, certainly using the tripod has a lot to offer, and that is my preference in virtually all cases.</p>

<p>But slow and careful is <em>not always</em> the best way to shoot. I'm thinking right now of a photo I licensed recently that was shot handheld - in reallity, it was more or less a desperate grab shot. I had been shooting on top of a popular Sierra peak in the late afternoon and during sunset, doing the full-on tripod/MLU/remote thing. I had finished, packed everything up, loaded my pack, and was on my way off the peak...</p>

<p>... when I was surprised by an unexpected suffusion of beautiful and gentle post-sunset light just as I saw a lone hiker pass across the granite dome below me. In a second I realized that if I dropped my pack, unloaded gear, set up tripod, mounted camera, composed shot, calculated exposure that the shot would be gone. Without dropping the pack, I instead quickly took my camera out of the chest pack and using the attached lens - which, thank God, has IS - I managed to get off a couple of relatively careful handheld exposures at very low shutter speeds before the hiker moved on and the light diminished.</p>

<p>One of them turned out just fine, and is one of my favorite photographs from this particular area.</p>

<p>So, yes, use a tripod. But learn to be flexible. The landscape is definitely not always a static thing, and you often need to be ready to respond quickly and intuitively.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I photograph trains and wildlife, plus a bit of family stuff. I hate tripods, they just get in the way and make me look like a dork. The only time I use a tripod is when I'm photographing a stationary object in poor light. I don't believe in the rule of thumb, it depends. I try to photograph using the fastest shutter speed I can consistent with obtaining the depth of field I want. I find no difference between ISO400 and 100 (is there any visible difference?) so I generally use 400 all the time going to 800 if necessary to obtain good exposures. If I find 800 is not sensitive enough then it's tripod time and I'm limited to things that don't move. I've used just about everthing imagineable to steady cameras in low light just to avoid that tripod. Yes hate tripods, but I admit in about 1 in a thousand shots it might be needed.</p>

<p>There is no hard, fast rule. Some occasions demand a tripod, others with reasonable light and shutter speed do not. IS does help to a great degree. If in doubt, set your drive settings to servo, hold the shutter release down and fire off 4-6 frames all at once, then pick the sharpess. My experience has been that almost always you'll find a frame or two out of the group that are essentially tack sharp.</p>

<p><strong>My question is: Does a tripod makes any obvious difference in sharpness compared to hand held shots that were taken following the focal length rule? i.e. If I take a hand held shot with a 28mm lens at 1/30sec (assuming I take the usual amount of care trying to hold the camera steady), will it be as equally sharp as one taken using a tripod?</strong><br>

<br /> I happen to own a 28mm 2.8 AFD, in my experience, at 1/30 of a second, the tripod shot will 100% be waaay sharper than the handheld one for me. (On a d200 i.e.)<br>

A little off topic, I only use a tripod when I'm shooting landscape at night. Handholding in the day can get very reasonable results. I've got a few 100% crops up <a href="http://wolfbrother.blogspot.com/2009/02/cleland-wildlife-park-again.html">on my blog</a> . Mostly 300mm shots though.</p>

<p>I use a tripod for landscapes that I will probably print, group shots that include me, night shots, etc. If I ever bought a heavier lens for birding I would use it then too.</p>

<p>If you have a light tripod it also doubles at a walking stick when you are hiking.</p>