With modern IS, how essential (really) is the tripod?

<p>I'm getting back into enthusiast photography after a few years absence. I've done quite a bit of film photography and printmaking in the past, but I put the hobby down for a decade or so, and I am trying to adapt to new tech. In the film days, a good tripod was essential of course.<br>

Now, with reasonably fast lenses (f/2.8-4) and modern IS giving 2-4 stops of shake prevention, I'm finding I don't reach for my tripod very often. Obviously I'll take it along if I'm shooting a group photo that I'd like to be in, waiting for the right shot with changing light, or maybe with strenuous hiking where I'm not always steady. But I've found that for most shots, if I'm shooting slow enough to make use of 2-4 stops of IS, subject movement is going to be an issue before handheld blur, even in landscapes.<br>

I visited a waterfall yesterday, and got nice water motion blur with everything else usably sharp, handheld. I think it was f/22, 1/4s and ISO 50 (middle of the day). I understand that for low light, completely still landscapes, a tripod allows more freedom for deeper DOF, but i still usually get very sharp shots at f/8-11 handheld (which is about where I want to be). I also have an older body (Canon 1DS2), so I avoid ISO higher than 400. Although with more modern bodies, this might be another argument against the tripod.<br>

Am I being really obtuse and missing something, or is this a real trend?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>f/22, 1/4s and ISO 50</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Small aperture means loss of resolution due to diffraction. 1/4s hand held is pushing it - even with IS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm finding I don't reach for my tripod very often</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me neither actually - I never liked using one much anyway. And IS/VR helps a lot. Nothing beats a good tripod though - but I find there are so many situations where I can't use one.</p>

<p>Most of the time, it is easier to shoot without a tripod, and IS or VR certainly make hand-holding acceptable in situations that ordinarily would prevent it. There are occasions when setting up is much easier with a tripod than without. Here are three: 1) photographing large groups, 2) sports or astronomical photography that requires long and heavy lenses, and 3) extreme close-ups.<br>

<br />I'm not ready to sell off my tripods, heads, L-brackets.</p>

<p>I like landscapes, architecture, and night photography. Even with excellent VR/IS, a tripod is essential for truly sharp images to be printed and hung. I recently upgraded to a Calumet graphite/titanium with a ball head (similar to, but less costly than Manfrotto/Gitzo equivalents), and I have no regrets whatsoever. I still shoot mostly handheld, but there is no substitute for the stability of a good tripod in some situations.</p>

<p>This shot would be impossible without a tripod.</p><div></div>

<p> Take a long lens like a 5 or 600 and see how you do with IS vs. tripod, also long exposures at night. See how the IS or VR does without the tripod.</p>

<p>I use a tripod a lot more than I thought I would. Long lenses always get a tripod, and when I want crisp macros, definitely a tripod. If sharpness is a major criteria, IMHO a tripod is a given. Having said that, probably 80% of my work is handheld.</p>

I still fine a high quality tripod and head to be essential for many of the kind of photos I enjoy making. If nothing else it

frees up my body from always being a human camera support

<p>Tripod is still 100% necessary for many types of images. That said, by combining the A7R2 with tilt shift lenses I am able to get a lot of shots hand held that i wouldn't have a few years ago. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. Clearly some types of photography (and lenses) absolutely require one, and always will. Back when I shot my Canon A1, you just just didn't risk 135mm handheld at something like 1/60 (let alone 1/4). And more than a hypothetical can/can't threshold for situations, I guess it was expensive to bracket, and risky not to (etc) so I just wound up carrying the tripod everywhere. <br>

I actually have always enjoyed lugging it along. I've got a Feisol CF / Sirui combo now that I really like (and is reasonably light). I'm learning how to use IS/VR effectively, such as taking some identical extras when in doubt to improve the chances. <br>

Obviously for anything critical, I'll bring it along. I guess over time I'll figure out better when to bring it along and when to leave it home. Cheers.</p>

<p>A tripod permits precise, reproducible composition and gives higher confidence of repoducible, optimal or close to optimal sharpness. With hand held VR shots the composition and sharpness vary from shot to shot. When making multiple bracketed exposures of e.g. sunrise, it is possible to include the whole dynamic range of the scene with high signal to noise ratio by using exposure blending. A tripod means your different exposures will have identical composition so there is no wasted space around the periphery. The same is the case when stitching panoramics, or when focus stacking: you get better results and don't lose the peripheral areas of the frame. It is also easier to align the shots in camera by using a tripod so there is no tilted horizon and if using tilt/shift lenses the adjustments can be made much more precisely, leading to better results both in terms of control of keystoning as well as optimal plane of focus.</p>

<p>I just go minimal myself. I was at Yosemite a couple weeks ago in the snow and I just carried my F100 and a 50mm lens. I had a roll of film in my jacket pocket. I am pleased with the photos that I took. A minimal kit means you cannot get every shot but I have increased mobility when hiking. The good news is I have enough water fall photos and am not worried about it. However my Grandkids are changing quickly and I need a faster shutter speed to catch them buzzing about. I like f5.6 a lot.</p>

But you have to be aware of your environment. Streets with heavy truck traffic, subways rumbling

underneath, airplanes flying low can create a lot of ground shaking. Maybe heavy surf. Sometimes hand

held may be steadier.

<p>I have to confess that I am shooting more hand-held shots, such as <a href="/photo/18035409&size=lg"><em><strong>this</strong></em></a> made out the car window at high ISO and fifty-five miles per hour. Turns out the shutter speed was 1/8000 sec.</p>

<p>(Sorry about the blotchy noise, but weird processing to get black skies and glowing trees and grass can sometimes do that.)</p>

<p>I still use my tripods a LOT for long exposures at night.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Here is one that I got of <a href="/photo/17878344&size=lg"><em><strong>two alien ships</strong></em></a> that had landed across the street. I used a long exposure on a tripod.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I'm probably now below 50% of shots on a tripod, and I feel I'm being lazy. I actually enjoy composing from a tripod better and using Live View , so it really is laziness, perhaps in combination with a recognition that many of the photographs I make don't matter much and are going nowhere. If I've found something that excites me, you can bet that I'll be using a tripod unless I absolutely can't.</p>

<p>I hadn't thought of IS/VR in the way some of you commented; IS/VR is ultimately a roll of the dice. Even though a good outcome is favourable if you stay within the limits of the system, there is always the chance that you'll get a dud. <br>

I've noticed that even though I'm capable of making a very good composition handheld, I'm often very lazy about it. I agree that there's a discipline involved when using a tripod, that might help as much as the actual technical benefit. </p>

<p>For a lot of applications a monopod is vastly more practical. Completely useless for long exposures mind you, but a lot easier to get where you want it without huge planning.</p>

<p>Image stabilization is probably all you need 99% of the time, but it is never as clear as when using a tripod, even at fairly fast shutter speeds (> 1/100). This is particularly true with high resolution sensors, where you see doubling (or worse) effects at the pixel level. If you want to extract every last bit from new sensors and lenses, use a tripod, lock the mirror (if appropriate) up, and use a cable release. IS is virtually useless for closeups in nature, because camera motion tends to be a large in proportion to the subject area.</p>

<p>Using a tripod encourages you to put a little more thought behind composition. It is also useful for consistency between shots, as for group shots and portraits, as well as stitched panoramas and bracketed HDRs.</p>

<p>Is tripod essential? No, quality handheld photos have been taken for over 100 years - today's image stabilization and high ISO helps even more. To reach maximum sharpness from your gear - you still want to put it on a tripod.</p>

That there is something like image stabilization is a sign that camera motion is still a problem. Image stabilization helps, but can be a problem itself (it's in how it works: reactive. And with a mind of its own, else we wouldn't need to switch it off when using a tripod). Removing the need for image stabilization helps even more.

<p>I like having high ISO range somewhere, OIS elsewhere but even combining them wouldn't make all kinds of shots possible. - I guess we are at least one decade before the tripods' last days tech wise. While I occasionally benefit from a tripod, I'd be happier to have flash / strobes and handheld shooting for my main interest portraiture.<br>

My tripod's last vacation was a long long time ago, but I am doing happysnapping, not necessarrily serious photography during my vacations. - Being a shutterbug travelling with ordinary people is annoying enough. - Bringing tripods along makes you rather counter social. </p>

 

<p>I still use one occasionally, but only rarely and when I know I will need it. I used to use my tabletop tripod all the time in the slide film days, but hardly ever now. So I think it fair to say that tripods are much less essential than they used to be.</p>

Less used = "less essential", Robin?<br>I think that (apart from the general stance towards quality vs convenience, where it is deemed acceptable to trade in the first for the second much more readily) not very much has changed. Use a tripod whenever possible. Don't when it is too cumbersome. Obviously do not when it is impossible. Shaky lens elements help a bit countering shaky cameras. But not that very much really. So what Thomas said: "To reach maximum sharpness [etc.]"

<p>We're not shooting Kodachrome anymore. As you note, modern IS is good for like 4-stops of stabilization. Shooting at ISOs in the 100 to 400 range and even ISO 6400 after sundown, allow us to get sharp images hand held, in situations where a tripod would have been routine ten-years ago. The tripod is needed for special effects still, astro, etc.</p>

<p>My Canon 5DsR has 52mp and in broad daylight, I shoot it hand held at ISO 100 or 200 for landscapes and see sharp details when viewed at 400%. If I'm shooting the Grand Canyon at dawn, I might pull out the tripod to assure that I can shoot at ISO 100, to allow a 72" print with no fear, but the shot would likely be fine at ISO 400 and could still be blown up just as large.</p>