Landscape photographers: does the D700 lessen your need for a tripod?

[wildflower art]

<p>If you are in the Galen Rowell crowd, does the D700 with its higher usable ISO capapility help diminish your tethering to a tripod?<br>

I have to walk extensively to get to my sites, and if 800 ISO produces results like my 160 thats a real advantage. I didn't think 1600 of anything as a toy before I read reviews of the D700.<br>

Back in the film days like everyone I used to ramp up my ISO on my film cameras just to have fun with the high shutterspeeds. 1600 would produce uniform fast (hand-holdable) sutter speeds at all my routine locations.<br>

It's hard to compare the Kodak SLR/n's clean 160 to anything, but I have heard wonder stories about the D700/D3's high shutter speeds, to stay nothing of the D3s. The kodak has poor high ISOs, and leaves me and my tripod very close.<br>

Thank you,<br>

Matthew Smith</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Didn't Galen use a Gitzo 1228 that he used to stand on it to check it, and even a shorter one, 0 series. :)</p>

<p>I shoot film just b/c no PP and WYSIWYG. The D700 is quite a heavy body isn't it compared to the F100 he used. He used to have a 18-35 instead of the 17-35 and incl cheap lenses like the 28-70/3.5-4.5 and the 80-200/4-5.6 which I had. </p>

<p>I still think film is more portable than digital. Ie., a N/F75 with a 18-35 and 80-200 as above or a FM2N and a 20/4 and a 100/2.8 (both 52 filter threads).</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have an SLR/n too, and unfortunately we are spoiled. I have only been able to compare on the net but it sure looks like the 14 MP of the SLR/n with no anti-alias filter outresolves current 12 MP and 16 MP cameras and even comes close to 21 MP cameras, all at base ISOs. So, while the high ISO performance of the Nikon full frames (and the D3 is supposed to heads above the D700) is vastly superior to the Kodak, they will not beat the SLR/n on a tripod at ISO 160.</p>

<p>My only direct obsevation is that my SLR/n does outresolve my 12 MP D2X at low ISOs, not too shabby either considering the pixel density of the crop body.</p>

<p>It seems that compromises must always be made, you just have to decide which works best for you. In fact, not having the AA filter means that about 3% of my shots are not good keepers, due to the moire effect, but I do marvel at the other 97%! </p>

<p>My problem is that even if I had a D3, I'd still be toting my tripod everywhere!</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Matthew,</p>

<p>Firstly, I'm in no crowd at all apart a crowd of 1 which is me and my own healthy opinions. Secondly, I'm coming from an experience base of digital back photography only- no film experience what so ever. My viewpoint below is based upon the landscape photography I do.</p>

<p>The aquisition of a D700 has indeed encouraged me to take more photo opportunites hand held, esp. in poor lighting conditions, however, at the same time I have also increased my use of tri-pods as I've rapidly come to realise that for crisp, sharp images, there is is absolutely no substitute for having your set up as stable as possible, in this case I have two tri-pods, a light weight - take anywhere set of legs and a heavier duty set of legs for car travel / home.</p>

<p>The D700 has increased both the opportunities I take in low light and also the % of keepers I get from taking these opportunities - in straight terms the D700 has goaded me into trying for some marginal shots and also has assited me to fluke some low light shots more often than with the D300 and other models before it. The noise penalty or lack of it has been discussed to death here on p.net so I'll leave that part out. <br>

Recently I've been boosting the ISO setting to a regular 3200 in normal ambient (outdoor) light to see what the noise does in the darker parts of the images, needless to say I perhaps may have been a bit too shy to use the ISO boost circa 1600 > 3200 in the past, currently I'm not seeing much reason to return closer to base ISO levels for this sort of shooting.</p>

<p>So to answer your question, my experinces have taught me that a camera back like the D700 has encouraged me to shoot hand held more often esp. when unforseen opportunites arise and the results have been well worth the execution. But on the other hand I've also improved my landscape photography at the same time by using a tri-pod more often but admittedly this is often when used in conjuction with filters or time lapse.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Matthew Brennan</p>

[link]

<p>Matthew,</p>

<p>I haven't used the D700, but I can tell you this from my experience with my Canon 5d and professional digital movie cameras:</p>

<p>When you crank up the ISO, you loose dynamic range, even if the camera is capable of "clean" results at high ISO's. </p>

<p>For example, I often shoot my 5d at 1600 ISO for low light hand held stuff. The images are fantastic, considering that I'm shooting in the dark. But it's really obvious that the highlights are rolling off rather harshly, and depending on the white balance, or color of the lighting, some colors will clip before others, making for some interesting backgrounds.</p>

<p>So, I would say for landscapes, high ISO shooting is no real substitute for a good tripod, though you might decide that ISO 400 on a more modern camera is acceptable. Anything above that and the dynamic range loss gets noticable.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Exactly. I have a D700, and although high ISO noise gets tamed somewhat, the DR isn't as good and it's got more contrast at high ISO. It's definitely got better IQ at base ISO. ISO 1600 is nice when I need it, but it's a compromise I avoid. It's good for cutting down on motion blur from tree branches, bushes, wild grass, etc. on breezy days, though.</p>

<p>As far as a tripod goes, I still want the camera to be as steady as possible. There's just no way I can hold any camera as steady as a good tripod will. My landscape shooting often involves using rectangular ND grads or long exposures with NDs for silky water, so a tripod usually comes along regardless of ISO.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I don't think there is anything that can replace the tripod. NO VR and no high ISO.<br /> I was really happy last night testing my D700 in different situations. I was just testing the noise at high ISO and I was very pleased with ISO 1600 and I thought 3200 was really good too. That will help me shooting at night when I can not use a tripod but if I was trying to get an amazing shot I would always use a tripod and base ISO.</p>

[akira]

<p>D700 may lessen the need of a tripod, but D3X shouldn't. The denser the pixel count of a sensor, the more unforgiving the camera becomes in terms of camera shake and focus error. So, we seem to keep cherishing sturdy tripods.</p>

[jphotog]

<p>The short answer: No.</p>

<p>I have quite a bit of experience of landscape photography with a D700 and have done some non-scientific testing.</p>

<p>The camera have an excellent ability to reduce noise (compared to other cameras), but there will still be more noise present as soon as you start increasing the ISO.</p>

<p>I have tested some of my lenses by focusing on a brick wall about 20 ft away and letting 1/3 of the frame to cover a distant background. Then I go thru the f/stops and ISO and compare at 100% in PS.</p>

<p>For my personal standard of IQ, I would say that going beyond ISO400 or max ISO640 will result in noticable reduction in resolution and sharpness. Obviously, I would take the shot at higher ISO if that is what is required. I admit I need to read up on in-camera NR etc.</p>

<p>If I want to create a picture of high quality, I will bring tripod, use mirror up and a remote control. I also work at f/stops where I know that the lens has a higher resolution than my sensor, typically f/8, f/11 or f/16.</p>

<p>Hope this may be of some help!</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>You should always use a tripod in landscape. It helps to compose, it helps to take your time, it helps to set something up and the wait for the right cloud etc. Even if you do have "more high iso" with the D700, how would you do the 2 second shot with flowing water?<br>

I use the Gitzo 1228 and it fits quite well, strong enough for the 300/4 or the 70-200/2.8 kind of lens.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>Michael hit the nail on the head. There's way more to using a tripod than shutter speed and ISO. The tripod slows you down, makes you think, allows longer shutter speeds and potentially changes you from a "spray and pray" photographer into a more contemplative one with better skills at all levels. I used a view camera for thirty years and still do occasionally, and that traditional approach works pretty well with a D700 and a tilt shift lens. For sports, snapshots, street work, journalism, use the high ISO, fast shutter speeds, and you'll do much better work without a tripod, but you mentioned landscape photography. Without a tripod, you'll be like the folks who pull up in the bus, hop off, snap a few and get back on, nothing wrong with that, it's just not landscape photography.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Even though ISO 800 is pretty good, ISO 200 is still better. And you need to focus the thing properly too, which is most reliable using live view. So the bottom line is, if you can have a tripod use it. But naturally it's always good to have the flexibility to go hand held when the tripod is not an option.</p>

[gaule]

<p>I'm a bit intrigued, Matthew, at the need you have to boost ISO sensitivity for landscape photography. For the last year I have been bringing a D700 with me on regular excursions into the mountains and don't often see the need to go above 200 or at the most 400. Leaving aside early dawn and dusk, by playing with aperture, there is usually sufficient light to get quite a good handheld shot following the usual rule of the reciprocal of the focal length as far as shutter speed is concerned. I would certainly agree with all who speak of the usefulness of a tripod, but it just isn't always practical to carry one on a strenuous alpine-style excursion. In my own experience, for quite acceptable shots, it isn't always necessary either. For me, a tripod is often synonomous with leisure, with having plenty of time to get everything right, and that may indeed be a requirement for hight quality artistry, but if your are walking, hiking, trekking, climbing, then compromises are called for.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nice as the D700 is quite good at high ISO, all still subjects should be photographed at base ISO (200), whenever possible. The competition is intense and they will use a tripod and base ISO, so should you. I always use base ISO for landscape photography myself. For macro I will sometimes go to 800 because of necessity in field conditions (even inanimate subjects move a bit in the field when you look at high enough magnification ) but other still subjects should be photographed with the highest possible quality .. that's the expectation and what your images will be compared to.</p>

<p>I do use the high ISO in people photography. A lot. </p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>For me, the need of a tripod has definitely been reduced. Back in my film days, I used a tripod MUCH more than I do now. The main reason to use a tripod now is to control your field of view for consistency, like with portraits where you want to fire off a bunch of shots to get a range of expressions with the same setup. The only times a tripod is absolutely necessary for stability is in very low light and with very long lenses. I usually do street shooting with a fast normal prime with my D200, and have no need of a tripod. It would only get in my way.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<blockquote>

<p>(and the D3 is supposed to heads above the D700)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would like someone who owns or uses both to give an opinion on the above statement by John Crowe. I have a D700 and find this statement difficult to believe although it may be true.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I love the D700, I use it for landscapes if I am doing an editorial assignment and have no problem going to ISO 1,600 for said landscapes. But for gallery work, I forgo it and use film in either my XPan or 500 C/M, I just like the tonality and detail at infinity much better than any digital, even my friend's D3X. Add to that darkroom prints seem to fetch 5-10 times the price of giclee and film in medium format or larger is a no brainer.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>The competition is intense and they will use a tripod and base ISO, so should you. I always use base ISO for landscape photography myself. For macro I will sometimes go to 800 because of necessity in field conditions (even inanimate subjects move a bit in the field when you look at high enough magnification ) but other still subjects should be photographed with the highest possible quality .. that's the expectation and what your images will be compared to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm....dunno my friend, competition if you are trying to win one of those cute little Flickr "Brownie Buttons". But if you are actually trying to make a living, you simply make better images than your competition no matter what it takes. Galen Rowell made many fantastic images with no tripod and he was using 25, 50 and 64 speed films, I doubt you would see him on the lake shore with a tripod like the 100+ plus seen in the photo on this thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00VtiB<br>

Think out of the box, Galen did.....</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i agree with the others, there is no subsititute for a tripod. sooner or later, if you really excell at landscapes, you will graduate to film, and then you won't be able to play the high ISO card. and as outlined above, higher iso will reduce the dynamic range, just as it does with film. i have a D3 and it just cannot compete with 135 film when it comes to low speed shooting.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>Galen Rowell made many fantastic images with no tripod and he was using 25, 50 and 64 speed films</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OTOH Rowell would most likely have used a tripod and modern technology had it been available to him at that moment. And Rowell already made many good images, so whoever comes after him should do something better; the bar is now higher.<br>

Of course I take a shot if I don't have a tripod or don't the time to get it ready, but the preference is to try to make the technical quality as good as possible.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>No, there are several images of Rowell's that never even needed a tripod, like Rainbow over Patola Palace and Riders on the Tibetan Plateau. It's simply about nailing the shot. Also Rowell did use modern technolgy in using an F100 and 17-35, etc. It's not about doing better than him which is what we all strive for in being different, it is about his approach that I find to be exceptional in adjusting to brilliant but swiftly changing situations with an absolute minimum of gear schlepping.<br /> It's a working method, not an absolute.<br /> I try to have things that are not tripods double as as them since weight is to always be kept at a minimum in this style of shooting, one of my packs has several lashing points for a small tripod to make it a bigger one. But otherwise, if I can brace, wedge in a tree, I will do that too and so do many professional shooters. I have also hauled a Hasselblad, 3 backs, 3 lenses, a tripod and 45 pounds of other pro mountain essentials up thousands of feet in near-rock climbing terrain to shoot in one local for days, what ever it takes to get the shot.<br /> I'm not sure how well your landscapes sell, but mine do fairly well because I get deep into places for extended amounts of time and use what ever approach I have to in order to create unique work.<br /> There is a lot of boring landscape work out there because people read the same forums, follow the same lemmings off the cliff and get the same photos as one another. Thinking out of the box is what Galen did to begin with, so I doubt he would follow the very average path that the enthusiasts seem to without deviation.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>We are blessed with many options today:<br>

(1) Lightweight carbon-fibre tripod legs<br>

(2) VR/Image Stabilization technology<br>

(3) Cameras that produce clean output at ISO 1600 and beyond<br>

(4) Cameras that and produce vivid color similar to the most saturated slide film with a dynamic range that's closer to that of print film.</p>

<p>There's no replacement for low-ISO exposed on a solid tripod - the D700 at ISO 1600 does not capture the clarity and detail that it does at ISO 200 - but in cases where use of a tripod would be impractical or unlawful or downright dangerous, we have options. Personally, I'll attempt shots with the D700 that I had once trained myself to believe were impossible. And it delivers! Church interiors at ISO 3200? No problem! High contrast scenes? The shadow detail that you can recover is astounding.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Don't sell your tripod, but don't stop shooting just because you can't take it with you all the time.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Galen Rowell made many fantastic images with no tripod and he was using 25, 50 and 64 speed films</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly right! It's interesting to note that when the late Mr. Rowell was creating his most famous work, the general consensus was that the "proper way" to take landscape pictures was to use a medium- or large-format camera mounted on a heavy tripod. Galen rebelled against the <em>status quo</em> electing instead to work with 35 mm cameras exclusively (even hobbyist models like the N80) and carried lightweight tripods (if any). I don't think we can safely make assumptions as to what type of gear or techniques he would have elected to use if he were with us today. Just because everybody says that you need to use a high-resolution DSLR mounted on a tripod and shot at base ISO doesn't mean that that's what he would have done.</p>

<p>I think it's fair to say that Galen Rowell's work was never defined by his gear but rather by his approach, his energy, and his love of wild and remote places. Based upon what I've read in his books, his primary requirements for gear were (a) reliability and (b) portability. He didn't seem very concerned with maximizing resolution (he preferred 35mm format) or dynamic range (he preferred slide film which he used in conjunction with graduated ND filters). A lightweight camera like the D90 might have found a place in his camera bag over the larger, heavier D3X. When climbing or running a long way he carried an F100 or even the inexpensive N80 opting to leave the "professional" F4s at home. I do recall reading that he liked VR a lot, specifically the 80-400mm VR lens; that's yet another indicator that he didn't want to be a slave to his tripod.</p>

<p>Daniel B, your work is exquisite!</p>

 

[johnfarrar]

<p>Matthew - I use a D700 for landscape, and understand the weight problem. I think the answer to your question comes in two parts. There's no doubt that the considered photos you can take using a tripod, when it's easier to use filters, check settings, and wait for the light/waves/clouds, results in a higher proportion of decent pictures - as well as the absolute need for a tripod to blur water and clouds. But that's not the only issue; it depends on where you want to take your camera. An ageing body on 6 hour mountain days with 1000 metres of ascent demands low weight. So if I know I'll need a tripod I take an old, light Gitzo; otherwise no tripod; and always use a stripped down set of lenses, chosen for (low) weight (say a 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75-150). But I'll stay at base ISO whenever possible (IQ is definitely better), and use the wide angle in poor light and for DOF. And shoot a couple of frames; one may be sharper. And I always carry a small square of closed cell foam to support the camera on a rock when necessary. So, as ever, it's getting the picture first, and following rules second - while accepting that the rule 'use a tripod' has a lot of merit some times in some places.</p>