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

[dcstep]

<p>Tim said:</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>One issue not mentioned is the forcefulness of mirror slap during shutter release which I'm seeing varies between camera brands/models. My 6MP Pentax DSLR has it so bad that it knocks my kit lens' somewhat loose feeling "quick shift" focus ring out of focus on handheld macro shots that now require me to manually focus with a tight grip on the focus ring and lens barrel. I could feel the slap of the shutter much more forceful on the end of my lens than on the camera's body grip. Sometimes it was so harsh the focus ring moved slightly even while gripping. All this time I couldn't figure out why auto focus nailed it in the viewfinder but didn't give sharp results.<br>

So a tripod wouldn't fix that problem except maybe a higher quality lens with a not so loose focus ring. Edward's claim of higher resolution sensors needing a tripod seems to make sense. But I wonder if he ruled out other factors similar to my little discovery about cheap lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>Edward is clearly into pixel-peeping. My experience with my 52mp body is that, as a practical matter, it makes little difference in the real world. Viewing on a 4K, 65" UltraHD TV, the 8800x5600 pixels are compressed and still look stunning, when taken with good lenses and processed appropriately. Printing 20x30" is no problem at all. I haven't produced a picture with that body yet that I want to print at 50" or 72" on the long side, but I'm looking forward to that day.</p>

<p>I DO look at my pix at 100% and 200% when decide on which to keep and process and I sense no practical decline in IQ going from a 22mp body to a 52mp camera. All I see is more detail. Hand held or on the tripod. </p>

<p>Still, I'm intrigued enough to want to do some more testing of my ability to hand hold. I could care less about a spider thread at 10-ft at 400%, but I do want to see what I can see. </p>

 

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Why would image quality decrease with increasing resolution? Do you tremble in anticipation, thus spoiling the shot? Hardly! You might expect it to increase, however. Whether it makes a difference or not is immaterial. The spider web is merely an illustration of what you can do if you expend the effort, which increases exponentially with resolution. (The insert is 100%, not 400%).</p>

<p>Actually, I think it does make a difference. An image downsampled and printed 14"x 11" will have more detail and sense of texture than from an image barely adequate in resolution. One reason Blu-Ray discs launched so slowly was than standard definition discs look so good on an HD television. Even now I shoot at video at 1080p and downsample with much clearer results than from 720x480, or even 720p (1280x720). Soon I will do that with 4K too.</p>

<p>I can't find Tim's comment about "cheap lenses." However I'm sure that there are lenses out there which would obscure the difference between 10 MP and 50 MP. I seem to have a few myself, most of them hyphenated.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"What is cheap about a tripod?" Cheaper than good lenses and camera bodies. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Accurate focusing is a really big deal, and a loose focusing ring would contribute greatly to that problem. The concept of depth of field is a convenient fiction. There is only one plane of sharpest focus, and perhaps not just one plane considering field curvature and astigmatism (q.v., the divergence of tangential and sagittal MTF curves). As I illustrated above, the normal conventions used to derive acceptable depth of field are far looser than the capabilities of modern sensors, and not all lenses are up to the task either.</p>

<p>Auto focus has certain limitations. Most of the time it works well, but it doesn't always select the best area of the subject, and there are built-in errors (e.g., dead band) which prevent unnecessary hunting, but may miss the mark. Optical finders are optimized for clarity at the expense of accurate manual focusing. Live view is a partial redemption, but is often clumsy to use, and restricted to use with a tripod. That's where electronic viewfinders (EVFs) excel. Basically, and EVF is full-time live view, with focusing aids such as magnification and peaking (edge enhancement). A Sony A7, for example, provides magnification in two stages, 5x and 12x. The spider silk above is invisible to the naked eye, much less through a viewfinder, but easily seen at 5x magnification. Live view or EVFs are essential to critical focusing.</p>

<p>"Pixel peeping" is often used as a perjorative. In fact, it is a tool to evaluate both images and technique. Other tools include histograms to evaluate exposure and image review (i.e., "chimping"). Someone who knows their equipment in depth is a "fanboy." I guess real photographers don't need light meters any more than tripods ;)</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, I think it does make a difference. An image downsampled and printed 14"x 11" will have more detail and sense of texture than from an image barely adequate in resolution. One reason Blu-Ray discs launched so slowly was than standard definition discs look so good on an HD television. Even now I shoot at video at 1080p and downsample with much clearer results than from 720x480, or even 720p (1280x720).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even my cheap kit lens & 6MP DSLR set to center point metering while auto focusing on my 720p HDTV from 7ft. away sees more than my eyes to where I have to resort to manual focus shooting hand held at 1/20's shutter speed because the metering senses the contrast of the TV's pixel grid rather than the edge of the image. Or maybe the DOF is so broad at f/4.5 at 7 ft. that it captures both image edge and pixel grid in sharp focus.</p>

<p>Below is a Raw shot of my 32in. 720p HDTV of a scene from the Fargo series on FX channel broadcast at 720p. I slide back ACR's contrast to max at -50 to show just how much detail it captured in the shadows I didn't see on the display. Also note that it shows more of the pixel grid lines. Barrel distortion also plays into level of perceived sharpness.</p>

<p>No tripod was used.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=628662">Tim Holte</a> said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"What is cheap about a tripod?" Cheaper than good lenses and camera bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll bet that my tripod and Arca-Swiss ballhead and Wimberley Sidekick cost more than the camera kit of 80% of our readers ($1,100). You can get away with less, but not with Edward looking at 400%.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>720p (1280x720), expressed 600 pixels wide on Photo.net? Honestly! Have you been paying attention?</p>

<p>Starting with some basics, a TV screen is nearly a flat plane. Depth of field is meaningless. Six MP is fifteen year old technology, less than cell phone quality these days. If resolution of the output is low enough, you can't tell the difference between 2 MP (720p) and 24 MP. A lens can have faint traces of "Coca Cola" embossed in it, and it will make no difference. You are fortunate that your 6 MP camera didn't show a lot of Moire with the TV screen, which is a problem when two low resolution media meet head to head.</p>

<p>When I say down-sampling preserves detail, it is because a decision must be made in the process whether a pixel appears in the results or not. That depends on surrounding pixels to some extent. A single point will probably be lost, but a line one pixel wide has a good chance of being retained. Guitar strings, for example, are often visible when down-sampled, even if the final resolution is otherwise marginal.</p>

<p>Most of my video subjects actually have strings, bows and such. If I shoot in SD (720x480), diagonal lines show a lot of staircasing, which looks pretty ugly. If I shoot in 1080p, interpolation of lines is much cleaner, and there is little staircasing. Other details are cleaner as well. The same thing occurs when I down-sample an high resolution image to print at 360 dpi, only on a smaller scale.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>720p (1280x720), expressed 600 pixels wide on Photo.net? Honestly! Have you been paying attention?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly you didn't even read what I said seeing you missed my point from my last post either by reading something into what I said as me contradicting you or you seem to need to be right about an issue in order to save face among your peers. I can't tell now from what now appears as pointless ramblings.</p>

<p>The moire as you call it on the TV screen is actual pixel grid when viewing the Raw file at 100%. Downsampling to 600 pixels does not preserve detail even on 6MP captures. I know this from posting thousands of images and having to grotesquely over sharpen when viewing at 100% in order to fight softness and loss of detail downsampling for the web. I didn't even sharpen HDtv image so now I'm wondering just what your point is for bringing it up.</p>

<p>Although now that I've posted this I now see it contradicts your spider web thread being so sharp which means my HDtv pixel grid shouldn't but that wasn't my intention or point. I have no idea how I've been able to get such sharp images shooting hand held at low shutter speed without a tripod so maybe you can explain that since you need to be an authority on the subject.</p>

<p>On second thought just forget it. What's the point anyway? I get a lot of sharp images without a tripod. I see something, I say something. That's all I'm doing.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Edward said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Pixel peeping" is often used as a perjorative. In fact, it is a tool to evaluate both images and technique. Other tools include histograms to evaluate exposure and image review (i.e., "chimping"). Someone who knows their equipment in depth is a "fanboy." I guess real photographers don't need light meters any more than tripods ;)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a proud pixel-peeper. If you take it as an insult, then that's your problem. <br>

<br>

WTF are you getting off into histograms and exposure evaluation. This isn't a thread about exposing to the right or evaluating exposures. Given that test shots are almost free, "real photographers" probably don't need light meters. Instead, an experienced photographer will know what exposure will work, take a test shot and then adjust EV up or down, as needed, all the while exposing to the right in order to gather as much data as possible. Like I said, we're not shooting Kodachrome anymore. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

An "experienced photographer" knows that using an exposure meter obviates the need for such a guestimate test and adjust and gets the right exposure immediately. ;-)<br>(And remember that "experience" and "have been doing it for a long time" aren't necessarily the same.)<br>Such a photographer also knows that using a tripod whenever possible is as sensible as using a meter is.<br><br>And more or less (un)related: an "i'm above using a [...]" attitude in whatever guise or however it is worded signifies... erm... well... not experience.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I apologize, Tim. I misunderstood your post and responded inappropriately.</p>

<p>Well said, Q.G. A craftsman should know how and when to use the tools at his disposal.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I tend to agree with David. In practical terms there is not much to be gained from a tripod when the shutter speed is high enough. I cannot see any difference between a shot taken at 1/500 s with a 50mm lens on and off a tripod. But if you want absolute control of your aperture and need to keep the ISO low too then you need a tripod, but these occasions have reduced markedly since film days. To respond to Q.G's language parsing, for those times when you need stopped down apertures on dull days and slow ISO, a tripod is essential, but these times are rare for me and I suspect for most people who habitually walk around with a camera around their neck. In film days, this just was not the case (as when I shot Kodachrome 64 at 50). So, for me, a tripod is no longer that essential piece of equipment it once was. I still have one and use it occasionally though. Overall I disagree with QG's assertion "a tripod whenever possible is as sensible as using a meter is". </p>

[dcstep]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker said:</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>An "experienced photographer" knows that using an exposure meter obviates the need for such a guestimate test and adjust and gets the right exposure immediately. ;-)<br />(And remember that "experience" and "have been doing it for a long time" aren't necessarily the same.)<br />Such a photographer also knows that using a tripod whenever possible is as sensible as using a meter is.<br /><br />And more or less (un)related: an "i'm above using a [...]" attitude in whatever guise or however it is worded signifies... erm... well... not experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., these days, almost all of our cameras have very sophisticated "exposure meters" inside; however, an experienced photographer may elect to guess and test, look at the Preview image and the histogram, see how bad the "blinkies" are and adjust accordingly, all with or without looking at a meter, internal or external. Even then, we may allow our camera to automatically bracket the shot. After all that, we'll adjust the exposure to taste in Raw conversion and post processing. Some "experienced photographers" may feel smug and superior because they meter every shot, while there are lots of photographers operating in the 21st Century and taking full advantage of the new tools at our disposal. </p>

<p>In high dynamic range situations, relying 100% on a meter, is more likely to lead to metering errors than using test shots. As a practical matter, any "experienced photographer" that uses his or her meter to set exposure would be a fool not to look at the feedback that the camera gives in the Preview and histogram. Also, the experienced photographer will know that their Preview and Histogram from the camera is based on a JPEG and not the Raw file (there may be bodies that are exceptions, but that's the norm) and adjust exposure accordingly, if shooting Raw. (Don't all "experience photographers" shoot Raw?)</p>

<p>I'll change one word in your pontificate, "Such a photographer also knows that using a tripod whenever <em><strong>required</strong></em> is as sensible as using a meter is."</p>

<p>Remember, we're not shooting Kodachrome anymore. Let's all move into the 21st century, even those kicking a screaming to stay back in time.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Good point Robin. The tripod/hand-held trade-off often comes down to shutter speed vs. noise. I try to shoot everything as if I'll print it 50". For landscape shooting, using the latest sensors, I have no trouble going up to ISO 400; however, once the tripod comes out, then I drop to ISO 100.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A tripod is still the go-to tool when you want the most precise composition, stitched panoramas, stacked exposures or consistency in general. Image stabilization removes most of the concerns over camera shake, but not all of them. Whether you "see" the difference or not depends entirely on how closely you look and what matters to you. Some people are happy with Ikea furniture, others appreciate good wood, fine joinery and rubbed finishes.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I've got a 72", hand held, seven-image (taken with 700mm super-tele), stitched mountain panorama hanging on my office wall. I'll give it a "magic touch" on my way out to lunch.</p>

<p>Guys and gals, we're in the 21st century. You can chose to use the new tools available to us, or not. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, no "experienced photographer" would ever talk about relying on a meter. Wouldn't need to test and check histograms either. That's what that word "experienced" really means.<br><br>Back to tripods: that "experienced photographer" knows that needing one is not a categorial yes-no thing. Hands always shake. Reactive counter measures help, but cannot be perfect. So if you wish to get rid of camera movement and what it does, the thing to do is get ridd of the movement, i.e. keep your ever moving hands off that camera. At all speeds and with or without image stabilization.<br>You're quite right though: if and when you don't care, you can and should do whatever you want.

[dcstep]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David, no "experienced photographer" would ever talk about relying on a meter. Wouldn't need to test and check histograms either. That's what that word "experienced" really means.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. that's absolute BS and you know it. Particularly now that we need to expose to the right to maximize our data collection. I and many others, know when a scene needs +1/3EV, +1EV or +2EV and get it right, but constantly improving sensor technology is increasing the dynamic range makes that a moving target. When we shot Kodachrome 64, that was an unchanging specification, but now it's in almost constant flux.</p>

<p>Are you the same <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> that said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>An "experienced photographer" knows that using an exposure meter obviates the need for such a guestimate test and adjust and gets the right exposure immediately. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Either there are two of you, or you talk out of both sides of your mouth. Do you use a meter, or not? What would you recommend to a newbie trying to learn photography?</p>

<p>So, to prove that you're an "experienced photographer", do you turn off the meter in your camera and never "chimp" by looking at the Preview screen on your camera? Do you only take one shot of each subject and then don't look at the result until you do your Raw conversion? If so, that's a gallant tilt at a windmill, but it proves nothing, other than it's possible. (I actually did that in 1958, at 11, because my Yashica 44 had no meter and I couldn't afford a hand held meter and I could barely afford one-roll of twelve exposures and didn't know my result until days later, when the prints came from the lab. Yet, that didn't make me an "experienced photographer", except, perhaps relative to most other 11-year olds).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I and many others, know when a scene needs +1/3EV, +1EV or +2EV and get it right,<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that what "exposing to the right" means? I think you have it backwards. Digital and Kodachrome 64 (any reversal film) have an absolute limit to over exposure. On the other hand, digital has enormous latitude with regard to underexposure. Kodachrome 64 is a dead-end on either end of the exposure curve. Strange that there are no negative values in your list, as simple logic would indicate. <br>

<br>

There has been some interesting work regarding digital exposure, under the general heading of "ISO Invariance." The following is a primer in the basic concept of digital exposure and noise, in case your "experience" proves inadequate.<br>

<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, there are tools, and there is knowledge, experience. The latter is needed to use the former. Without, you don't know what you are doing, and have to keep looking for confirmation (for instance using chimp screens and histograms). Experience means knowing when you got the thing you wanted, the way you wanted, without needing prior tests or confirmation afterwards. Pick up your tools, use them the way you know you need to, and it's over and done with in the blink of an eye.<br>And it's not that it is difficult. Anyone can learn. And while you learn, please do run tests and try things to see how they turn out. "Constantly improving sensor technology" only helps to make it even more fool proof. Constantly 'improving' gadgetry however (meters, for instance, that have a multitude of settings you need to get through 50+ pages in a user manual to get to know) may impress the inexperienced but are of no use to the experienced photographer. (Who also knows that the essential feature of any form of automation is the off-button.)<br>Once you've learned, and learned how really simple it all is, you'll know that it is not necessary, even a hindrance, to keep doing that test-confirm malarkey as if every next photo you're about to make is the first photo ever.<br><br>Say, since you appear to have all the time in the world to test and seek confirmation, why don't you put your camera on a tripod? ;-)

[dcstep]

<p>Edward asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is that what "exposing to the right" means? I think you have it backwards. Digital and Kodachrome 64 (any reversal film) have an absolute limit to over exposure. On the other hand, digital has enormous latitude with regard to underexposure. Kodachrome 64 is a dead-end on either end of the exposure curve. Strange that there are no negative values in your list, as simple logic would indicate. <br /> <br /> There has been some interesting work regarding digital exposure, under the general heading of "ISO Invariance." The following is a primer in the basic concept of digital exposure and noise, in case your "experience" proves inadequate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No matter your camera's ISO invariance, you gain data by exposing to the right ("ETTR"). My "list" was not meant to be complete. The obvious need for a negative EV, such as -1/3, -1 or -2 is when shooting a white bird flying against a dark BG. I used positive examples because that's the more likely scenario with most subjects.</p>

<p>With digital photography, those of us with "experience", ETTR without blowing <em>important</em> highlights, so that the most data possible will be recorded. Even with a sensor with ISO invariance, you will gain dynamic range by gathering more information in the shadows. When converting from Raw, you "normalize" levels down to target level. Underexposing will require you to raise levels in Raw conversion, adding noise, even in the most ISO invariant sensor available. At higher ISOs, like ISO 800 and 1600, ETTR becomes increasingly important because the sensor's noise production starts out higher. Some people are scared to push to the edge of highlight blowout and give up dynamic range as a trade-off.</p>

<p>Kodachrome gave us little tolerance for under or over exposure. Every exposure in a roll was processed the same way, unlike today, where we can apply different exposure compensation to each image. That's why I keep saying, "We're not shooting Kodachrome anymore."</p>

<p>Q.G. is talking in circles. Dear readers, know you tools and use them as appropriate for your experience level and familiarity with your equipment. I think that he and I agree on that. I can't figure out what else he's trying to say. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I've repeated it often enough, David: An "experienced photographer" knows that using an exposure meter obviates the need for such a guestimate test and adjust and gets the right exposure immediately. Pretty straightforward.<br><br>Oh, and: Such a photographer also knows that using a tripod whenever possible is as sensible as using a meter is. ;-)

[dcstep]

<p title="Hero"><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> An "experienced photographer" knows that using an exposure meter obviates the need for such a guestimate test and adjust and gets the right exposure immediately. Pretty straightforward.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and then he said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...no "experienced photographer" would ever talk about relying on a meter. Wouldn't need to test and check histograms either...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, maybe there's a word missing or a typo. Are you advocating the use of a meter, or not?</p>

<p>If you're trying to send some message especially for me, I didn't need a meter in 1958 and need one less today, but I'd still recommend that most photographers pay attention to their meters and histograms and/or preview screens. Those are all good tools to help anyone in doubt about the appropriateness of their exposures. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>others appreciate good wood, fine joinery and rubbed finishes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am that person, so I am not sure what you are suggesting to be honest.</p>

[dcstep]

<blockquote>

<p>I am that person, so I am not sure what you are suggesting to be honest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too, Robin.</p>