Tripod vs Hand Held

[neill_farmer2]

<p>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.</p>

[jussi_vakkala1]

<blockquote>

<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..<br>

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>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Great bird shots Jussi - a really nice portfolio. Kudos.</p>

[mphoto gallery]

<p>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....<br>

<br />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.</p>

<p>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".</p>

<p>I believe my recent hernia has made me a bit less thoughtful when preparing responses!</p>

 

[andrew_gale]

<p>Mark, you image suffers from focus issues much more than from camera shake issues.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Mark -</p>

<p>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". </p>

<p>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.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Putting a camera on a tripod doesn't necessarily yield sharper photos. Sharpness can be hindered by many factors.<br>

- Wind can make a tripod vibrate like a guitar string.<br>

- 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.<br>

- 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.<br>

- A poorly constructed tripod may not be stable enough for critical shooting especially with longer lenses.<br>

- If the tripod is too small for the camera, it's going to be unstable.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I would prefer to say "technique is key to ensuring sharp images and to help I will often use my tripod".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, works for me, Mark...</p>

[danbliss]

<p>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...</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Like Keith, when shooting moving subjects like wildlife or sports etc I avoid the tripod at all costs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<div></div>

[carl_becker2]

<p>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.</p>

[lukerossknecht]

<p>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...</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"I rarely use a tripod. I hate the things and only use one when it is absolutely essential. "<br />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.</p>

[danbliss]

<p>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<br /> P.S. This was just for fun. My apologies if I made a mistake. :-)<br>

P.P.S. The attached is not a photo, but the rest of my message with some equations in it. </p>

<div></div>

[me facebook]

<p>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.</p>

[ndt_photo]

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Luke posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Dan</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I guarantee you that the ones taken with the tripod and cable release will appear sharper.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Don't do a lot of wildlife/bird photography do you, Harry?</p>

<p>;0)</p>

[evan_weiss]

<p>of course a tripod will make your photos sharper! what kind of question is this? basic physics.</p>