Tripod vs Hand Held

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jamie_robertson|2, Feb 22, 2009.

  1. Hi folks,
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
     
  2. 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!

    Even stopping down a bit will make a big difference in sharpness, especially at the margins of the frame. But you give up shutter speed. Enter the tripood.
     
  3. 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.
    Not quite a "yes/no" answer, but I'm afraid that's how it is.
    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...
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Dan
     
  4. Your question: "Does a tripod makes any obvious difference in sharpness compared to hand held shots that were taken following the focal length rule?"
    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...)
     
  5. 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?
     
  6. 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.
    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.
    I am a born again tripod user.... Here is one of the blurred images that make me a convert.....
    00SXZi-111107684.jpg
     
  7. 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.
    With all that said, I use tripods less than my film days simply because digital high ISO 800 & 1600 are actually pretty good.
     
  8. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. "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?"
    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.
    "I am a born again tripod user.... Here is one of the blurred images that make me a convert...."

    Mark, with all due respect, I would say the problem with your shot is the focus being off rather than camera shake.
    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.
     
  11. Mark, with all due respect, I would say the problem with your shot is the focus being off rather than camera shake.​
    + 100.
    That's an OOF shot, not a camera shake shot.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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!
    Even a monopod can help a lot.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. By using a tripod, you are slowing down, taking your time to focus accurately, leveling the horizon, carefully setting exposure.
    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.
    Naturally photographer "B" has better odds of getting better, and more of a variety to his or her photos.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    This is not in any way putting down these lenses. Often a tripod is impractical, but I still believe in John's statements.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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:
    Rook , Blue tit , Mute swan , Turnstone , Starling , Carrion crow , Carrion crow , Canada goose , Mandrill monkey , Mute swan , Knot ...
    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..
    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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. Thanks folks,
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  21. Kerry Grim [​IMG] , Feb 22, 2009; 04:09 p.m.
    By using a tripod, you are slowing down, taking your time to focus accurately, leveling the horizon, carefully setting exposure.
    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.
    Well, yes. But, no.
    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.
    But slow and careful is not always 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...
    ... 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.
    One of them turned out just fine, and is one of my favorite photographs from this particular area.
    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.
    Dan
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. 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?

    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.)
    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 on my blog . Mostly 300mm shots though.
     
  25. 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.
    If you have a light tripod it also doubles at a walking stick when you are hiking.
     
  26. I admit using a tripod at the 1/focal length shutter speed will give you a sharper shot than hand held but you might not notice it even at 100%, how steady are your hands? But why go to all the trouble? Just use 1/500th on that little 28mm lens, nobody will ever know.
     
  27. "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..
    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."​
    What comes to bird photography I can pick between 300/4 or 500/4 + tripod and tele converter to match. For any other reason than mobility/logistics in business trip I would pick 500/4 on tripod for my birding -> tripod wins from the moment I have it set up to eye level.
    When I'm birding I have tripod legs ready adjusted, setup is on my shoulder and there are not too many situations where I'm loosing the spontainety of picture because of tripod. Otoh if the name of the game is waiting, tripod frees hands from supporting the camera for a quick action in situations like flight shots, in hide, at feeder etc.
     
  28. Great bird shots Jussi - a really nice portfolio. Kudos.
     
  29. Hi Keith. I am a supporter of balanced discussion. So often I read discussions that are very one-sided and often lack substance to support why....

    Those images are very nice. I do have a challenge handholding my 100-400 on my 40D when set near 400. It is clear that technique is very important and I am concentrating on that right now. I certainly could have selected a better image to illustrate what I thought my shortcomings were.
    In order to offer a more balanced thought myself, I would perfer to say "technique is key to ensuring sharp images and to help I will often use my tripod. That said, there are times when it is not practical to set it up and although I carry it with me almost every outing, if the lighting is right, I will opt for a handheld shot".
    I believe my recent hernia has made me a bit less thoughtful when preparing responses!
     
  30. Mark, you image suffers from focus issues much more than from camera shake issues.
     
  31. Mark -
    Keith's images are indeed excellent and he clearly has very good hand holding technique and uses his camera settings wisely to get wonderful results. If you look at the EXIF data, he is shooting at ISO 400 with shutter speeds around 1/1250 or 1/1600 - safely above the 1/focal length "rule".
    I am not one to think that any one technique is "right" - we all develop our own ways of working and then fine tune it to get the results we want. If we can't get the right results, we go back to the drawing board and figure something else out. Whatever gives you the images you want is clearly the right technique for you, irrespective of anyone else's opinion.
     
  32. Putting a camera on a tripod doesn't necessarily yield sharper photos. Sharpness can be hindered by many factors.
    - Wind can make a tripod vibrate like a guitar string.
    - Soft surfaces (sand, bogs, mushy vegetation) can limit a tripod's effectiveness. Adding weight and spikes might help but it's still not going to be as stable as working on firm ground or pavement.
    - If your camera is not securely fastened to the tripod head it can twist slightly when the shutter is released. Use custom QR plates if they're available.
    - A poorly constructed tripod may not be stable enough for critical shooting especially with longer lenses.
    - If the tripod is too small for the camera, it's going to be unstable.
    There willl be instances where handheld shots end up being sharper than tripod-supported shots just because our body mass is more significant that a tripod's mass. That said, it's very difficult to hand-hold a shot effectively at a shutter speed of less than 1/30th of a second even for a wide-angle lens. By 1/15th you'll be lucky if you get one sharp handheld shot out of fifty. At slow shutter speeds, tripod-supported images will almost always be SHARPER but not always SHARP due to the factors described above.
    Composing on a tripod isn't necessarily superior, either. When you're holding your camera in your hands you tend to move around and try different vantage points. A camera on a tripod can get "stuck" in one spot, because if you move the tripod you have to balance and re-adjust everything again. Plus, anyone who's worked with tripods for a while has had the experience of framing a good composition by hand and then having difficulty replicating the exact composition with the tripod.
    What a tripod does offer is repeatability. You can make several exposures from exactly the same spot, images that you might be able to combine or edit together later. The tripod lets you refine your composition in a controlled and methodical manner by making one small adjustment at a time. Handheld shooting on the other hand can be more spontaneous. Sometimes the spontaneous shots come out better, sometimes vice versa. It's best to keep an open mind and react honestly to the environment and your subject rather than falling into a "one way is better" rut.
     
  33. I would prefer to say "technique is key to ensuring sharp images and to help I will often use my tripod".​
    Yep, works for me, Mark...
     
  34. As Dan South points out, there are lots of things that can soften an image. For the most part I agree with Kerry Grim; one of the greatest advantages of using the tripod is that you tend to focus a bit more on your composition. You also tend to have greater freedom in your selection of depth of field. Of course, there are many situations like street photography for which hand holding makes more sense, but I have found 90% of the photos of mine that I have liked have been taken with a tripod. It may be a personal thing, but I have not noticed the "stuck" phenomenon to which Dan alludes. Maybe I am just used to moving the tripod around. I admit that it is a pain, but I think that it is worth. Maybe I have gotten used to it. When I hiked across the grand canyon (rim to rim in a day (Please don't try it. I was with hiking experts.)) I had a light tripod (and the help of strong hikers). If I go out without a tripod, somehow I think I am just screwing around. Not that there is anything wrong with that...
     
  35. If you don't want to use a tripod, then make the most out of it: take pictures of moving things, use the lighter gear and shorter setup times to move faster to see more and take more good pictures in a short amount of time.
    I just did some shooting where the fastest shutter speed was 1/20 and the slowest around 30 sec. Clearly that kind of situation is best avoided if you don't want to use a tripod, but if you do want to photograph it then get used to the idea of a tripod.
     
  36. Like Keith, when shooting moving subjects like wildlife or sports etc I avoid the tripod at all costs​
    Here is a perspective from another Keith =) When happens when you are shooting moving subjects and you want a sharp photo? Well, you are going to need a faster shutter speed, so now what?
    They make a tripod for this type of photography. It is called a monopod and most of your wildlife and sports photographers use them. Why? Because it is the best mobility+sharpness trade off.
    Here is an example of a nice sharp photo. It was really cold outside, and the wind was blowing. W/O a Monopod there is no way I would have gotten a sharp photo like this. D200, F/4.5, 80-200 f/2.8 @ 100mm, 1/1000th, ISO 200. NR turned off, only cropped, no sharpening added.
    00SYMo-111281884.jpg
     
  37. Its my belief that using a good tripod in the proper manner will always deliver a sharper image. If the image doesn't require max sharpness then go hand held. If you are happy with hand held results then continue. I don't like tripods but have started using them when ever possible. I don't use them when taking pictures of running dogs or flying model airplanes because I can not be static. I do walk through the woods carrying 6.5 pounds of tripod and head plus a 500mm f4 looking for birds. I have no luck what so ever with monopods YMMV.
     
  38. A little off-topic, but some posters have said that the 1/focal length rule needs to be multiplied by the crop factor of a DSLR camera. Is this right? A cropped image isn't literally taken at a longer focal length, so why would this be true? Would you multiply your 1/FL by 1.5 if you knew you were going to crop a FF image? Just curious...
     
  39. "I rarely use a tripod. I hate the things and only use one when it is absolutely essential. "
    I hate them too, but try this experiment at home, take a picture of a regular ketchup bottle from let's say 20 feet away. Then try to read the lettering on the label of the ketchup bottle. Take one hand held picture, one with a tripod, then try one with a tripod and a cable release. Don't just take one, take a few maybe ten of each then compare them all. I guarantee you that the ones taken with the tripod and cable release will appear sharper.
     
  40. Luke, just for fun I thought I'd try to work out the rule of thumb, and, yes, you would need to modify it by the crop factor for the same number of pixels. Hopefully, I can figure out how to attach my notes here. Dan
    P.S. This was just for fun. My apologies if I made a mistake. :)
    P.P.S. The attached is not a photo, but the rest of my message with some equations in it.
    00SYSo-111305584.jpg
     
  41. Mark Harrison, I checked the Grebes shot. I looks like a back focus issue, not a blurred photo. The water just behind them appears to be in focus, at least to my eyes.
     
  42. I drink coffee, lots of it. I use a tripod to counteract my coffee shakes! Oh, and using a tripod opens up ALOT more creative opportunities. Flowing water, star streaks, carnival rides, tracking shots (animal & auto), moving crowds of people, wind in trees, and on and on...
    I understand how people love sharp images and like the flexibility of handheld shooting but long shutter speeds are the reason I fell in love with photography and a tripod goes hand in hand.
    I know this discussion is about the sharpness at higher shutter speeds, so on that note, I find my image quality on a tripod is much better than handheld at shutter speeds between 1/30 - 1/250, depending on the focal length. I use a VR lens for handheld situations, but the VR gets turned off as soon as the camera goes on the tripod. In my mind a tripod will always be more reliable for true 'VR' than the VR function of a lens.
     
  43. Luke posted:
    A little off-topic, but some posters have said that the 1/focal length rule needs to be multiplied by the crop factor of a DSLR camera. Is this right? A cropped image isn't literally taken at a longer focal length, so why would this be true? Would you multiply your 1/FL by 1.5 if you knew you were going to crop a FF image? Just curious...​
    Yes, that is correct. If the 1/FL rule works for you then on a full frame camera you might ballpark 1/50 second as a reasonable minimum for hand held shots with a 50mm lens. On a 1.6x cropped sensor camera using the same focal length you would regard something around 1/80 second as being equivalent for hand held shooting.
    Also, the "rule" is really only a "rule of thumb," and the actual minumum shutter speed will vary depending on a number of factors including your own solidity, how careful you can afford to be when making the shot and so forth.
    Regarding the "composition is better with/without a tripod" issue, I frequently do my initial composition without the camera on the tripod and only then attach it to the tripod. Hand holding the camera can often give me more flexibility for finding a good composition, but the tripod lets me fine-tune it more effectively, ensure that the composition is exactly the one I saw, and of course reduces/eliminates blur from camera motion.
    Dan
     
  44. I guarantee you that the ones taken with the tripod and cable release will appear sharper.​
    Don't do a lot of wildlife/bird photography do you, Harry?
    ;0)
     
  45. of course a tripod will make your photos sharper! what kind of question is this? basic physics.
     

Share This Page