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

[Ed_Ingold]

 

 

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>I use that as an analogy to appreciating what your equipment can do, and what is necessary to use it to its fullest.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

[dcstep]

<p>Edward said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use that as an analogy to appreciating what your equipment can do, and what is necessary to use it to its fullest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I agree 100%.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Saw the moon, shot it, without walking back to the car to get my tripod.</p>

<p>700mm, hand held at 1/499-sec.</p>

<p><a title="Untitled" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1508/24123554559_9ae42a986f_c.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

<p>Click through to Flickr if you want to see it full-screen and larger.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Great shot, David. Forgive me, but I am still left wondering what more detail you might have gotten with a tripod.</p>

<p>It's not about you, of course. <a href="/photo/10263531&size=md"><em><strong>Here is one of my own</strong></em></a> that left me yearning for more resolution--always more resolution, especially where lunar detail is concerned, but with modest telescopes I am always left wanting more. In this case, I did use a tripod, but the limitations were either my gear or my technique, or both. Those limitations are obvious enough with the small image, but when one clicks on the image to get a larger image, the defects/limitations leave me shaking my head.</p>

<p>Here is <a href="/photo/13479092&size=lg"><em><strong>another of mine</strong></em></a> that leaves me wishing for more. On this one, I had a hard time knowing when I had infinity focus.</p>

<p>Too much resolution is an oxymoron. As for pixel peeping, it is one of my favorite pastimes. I cannot see the logic of paying thousands for better sensors and lenses without checking to see if one is getting one's money's worth.</p>

<p>Frankly, though, I just enjoy seeing more detail. I always have.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yet, yet, I also find myself in situations where I have no alternative but to turn up the ISO and lean up against something (if I can find something) and shoot hand-held. Otherwise the shot is lost.</p>

<p><a href="/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=423641"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17505718&size=lg"><em><strong>THIS ONE</strong></em></a> was shot a fraction of a second later and was heavily cropped. Still the 12 mp of the D3s did pretty well in terms of getting detail, I thought. (One can see some of the chromatic aberration that one gets with the D3s at very high ISO.) I am admittedly not the best with hand-held shots, but I do the best I can. Had the lens been a long lens (such as my Leica Telyt 560 or the Nikon 600 f/4 Ai-S), I doubt that I could have gotten much more than a blur. In fact, I would not have even bothered to try shooting hand-held with the manual focus Nikon 600mm f/4. Doug Herr used to get some incredible bird shots with the Leica Telyt 560, but that lens comes with a shoulder "brace" that helps a lot (although I have still never mastered it).</p>

<p>VR or IS would have helped on all of my shots not made with a tripod, of course.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, to end this repetitive theme: we use tools. A meter gives input that is evaluated by someone who understands how meters work in general, knows how the particular meter is, well... particular, knows what the meter is pointed at, and knows what his or her goal is. Such someone meters (which already involves making decisions the meter can't make), and then does his or her own thing.<br>A simple, and very well known (and age old) example that might help you understand is the black cat in a coal shed and/or white cat in the snow thing. An experienced photographer does not rely on his meter. He or she knows how to use the meter.<br>(And you say you do not need even that. Which i think is rather silly. If anything, experience shows that we mere humans are not very good at guessing light levels or contrasts. The reason we invented such a crutch to lean on to begin with. We must not only know our tools, but also ourselves. So instead of going through a trial and error cycle, chimping, looking at histograms - the display of a meter! - to adjust your guestimates, just use a meter...!) <br><br>Back to tripods, i'll keep on harping on that other repetitive theme: not using a tripod is always at a cost. A trade off of image quality vs convenience. Sometimes we have to. Often it is just not wanting to carry and set up a tripod.<br>That 700 mm moon shot you made, David, is clearly blurred. When there is not opportunity to put a camera on a tripod, so be it. But this one sure would have been sharper.

[dcstep]

<p>Hey Lannie, LOL. Great shots. Love your work.</p>

<p>I could have cropped a lot tighter, of course, you know. Did you click-through to Flickr, expand the image, hit F11 and then hit the + to see it full-screen plus?</p>

<p>For me, the big variable on moon shots is getting a crystal clear sky. Ten-minutes earlier, with the moon only a little lower in the sky, a crisp shot wouldn't have been possible, due to atmosphere.</p>

<p>BTW, if I planned to print this 50"x50", I would have run to the car to get my tripod. ;-) As it is, this is "good enough" for a 65" screen with 4k resolution, 27" monitors and maybe a 20x20 or even 30x30 print.</p>

<p>Lannie, have you ever done a print up in the 50x50" range of one of your moon shots? I bet it'd be a stunner.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Hey everyone, Q.C. is back and this time he says that we need our meters, but he calls it a "crutch". At least that's what I think he said this time.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think that we have tons of tools in our modern cameras; meters, AF systems, image stabilization, high performance sensors, etc. Be familiar with them all and their capabilities and use them when you need them.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. is coming from years of experience with medium format, for which the camera is an inert tool, leaving all of the important decisions to the photographer. You learn to get it right the first time, or go broke trying. Shooting medium format WITHOUT a tripod is equivalent to using a Kodak box camera.<br>

<br /> It is clear that your "experience" is meaningless, many bad habits, repeated endlessly. For digital and reversal film, you determine the brightest object in which you wish to retain detail, and expose to the LEFT, two to four stops, OR expose for the mid-range, whichever is greatest. This is largely derived from principles Ansel Adams wrote about fifty years ago, updated of course. Your redemption is that in daylight, sun over your shoulder, "sunny 16" works well enough.<br /> <br /> You obviously did not read the article on ISO Invariance (or did not understand it). Perhaps it's just another wonky experiment of no use to those with "experience." It's not too late. At least the article will shed some "light" on where the detail truly resides in digital capture.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Hey everyone, Q.C. is back and this time he says that we need our meters, but he calls it a "crutch". At least that's what I think he said this time.</p>

</blockquote>

 

We need a light meter because our eyes do not register light objectively. We need a crutch when our legs won't support us, or perhaps just a walking stick on a steep incline. In any case, a tool to be used when necessary.

 

 

Spend a little more effort on reading comprehension, and less time on taking things out of context and parsing.

[dcstep]

<p>Edward, I started in medium format and didn't move to 35mm until several years in. Digital was decades later.</p>

<p>Edward, exposing to the Left of the brightest object is the same as exposing to the Right of an "Evaluative" or "Average" or "Center Weighted" meter reading. I use the ETTR nomenclature because it's more widely used in today's digital photography community. When I say "ETTR", most Raw shooters know what I mean, where if I said ETTL, I'd need further explanation, such as yours. I actually think that we're on the same page so far as digital exposure goes, just using different terms. I'm surprised that you're not familiar with the term "ETTR."</p>

<p>I read the excellent article on ISO Invariance when it first came out and read it again when you cited it. Although an ISO invariant sensor will tolerate raising shadows in Raw conversion with less noise than a sensor that is not quite so invariant, both sensors will benefit from ETTR by collecting more data. Take two shots, one using an evaluative meter exposure (0EV) and then one using +1EV. The file of the +1EV image contain more data and you'll see that it has a larger file size. When you normalize the +1EV shot in Raw conversion, by reducing the exposure, the resulting finished TIFF will have less noise than the image shot at 0EV. Of course, <em>this is more noticeable at higher ISOs.</em></p>

<p>This concept is important particularly to nature and bird photographers that typically shoot at high ISO in order to get fast enough shutter speeds to stop action. Also, most photographers are NOT using the Sony sensor used as the reference in the article and their sensors are less invariant at low ISOs. Here again is one more example where it pays the photographer to understand his or her equipment and manage exposure accordingly. I say, "ETTR", you say, "ETTL", but we mean the same thing, although we may practice it to different degrees.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David is on a self imposed mission... David, when you find people do not share your meaning, that is not necessarily so because they don't understand things as 'well' as you do. Get it? ;-)<br>What Edward said, David. A crutch. A prosthesis. Because we can't do it ourselves, we invent a thing that helps us achieve it anyway. "A tool to be used when necessary". The nature of and reason for things called tools. That is: in one meaning of the word.<br>You are a bit torn between trying to know how to use a tool ("important") and promoting a trial and error method. Why don't you trust yourself to know what you are doing?<br>And why do you rely on image stabilisation when you know that a tripod removes the need for that at best wonky crutch? Your moon shot is nice, compositionwise. But if only you had used a tripod... ;-)

[dcstep]

<p>IS is a crutch, a tripod is a crutch. Chose your crutch.</p>

<p>The moon image speaks for itself. Readers can click-through and decide for themselves.</p>

<p>I'm not "torn between" anything. My images stand up to 50" prints and people have happily bought them, including art directors. (I don't make a living with photography, but it pays enough to be a "business" and offsets equipment costs, which are substantial).</p>

<p>Q.G., I'm only responding to keep balance for the readers. I not on a mission to change yours or Edward's minds.</p>

<p>Dear readers, I'll try to summarize and distill:<br>

In-camera or in-lens IS these days is really, really good, so much so that for many usages (small prints, internet usage viewed in "normal" internet sizes, including full-screen on a good monitor) you no longer need a tripod in situations that previously demanded a tripod. As you go up in file requirements, such as printing 50" prints of scenes that require shutter speeds less than 1/100-sec. and low ISO, then a tripod is REQUIRED to get the image sharp enough. "Sharp enough" to me means that the print viewer will first view the image from a few feet and then be drawn to bring their eyes mere inches from the print. If the viewers are not equally pleased with both perspectives, then the image is not sharp enough.</p>

<p>There was a side discussion of exposure and meters, but I think that we all agreed that, ever how you do it, ETTR (expose to the right) gets the most information into the Raw file. Edward, I think it was, calls this ETTL (expose to the left) but we're talking about the same thing. Real photographers do and don't look at their meters. So long as the exposure is correct, none of that discussion about meters, chimping, histograms, etc. really meant a hill of beans. Do what works for you. YMMV</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, David, you are such an experienced photographer that you really do not even need a meter, yet propose that we shoot test shots and examine the histogram (the display of a meter...) on our camera to see whether we are getting close to where we want to be. What is it? Why don't you just use your experience, use a meter, and get done with it in almost no more time than it takes to press the release? You know: "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." But i guess you'd rather be a "real photographer". Your choice.<br><br>And back on topic. Yes, both a tripod and image stabilisation are crutches. The question was whether a tripod is an essential crutch now that we have image stabilisation. And it still is, yes. The difference is that one is capable of removing the problem completely, and the other is not. Image stabilisation thus is a crutch for those wo don't like to or can't use the better crutch. It's better than nothing, so hurray for image stabilisation. But the other one provides the perfect solution. Is just a bit less convenient.<br>So, readers, know what you are chosing between! Image stabilisation is really, really not that good, and/so we still need a tripod. Whenever possible, use a tripod!<br>Unless, of course, you don't care. Then you can do whatever you want.

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G., I'm sorry to read that you struggle with, "Image stabilization is really, really not that good" and that's probably the root of your need for a tripod. Many of us are using modern cameras and lenses with IS that is really, really good.</p>

<p>I would hope that we can all agree that there's a shutter speed high enough for any specific lens where no "crutch" at all is needed, neither IS nor tripod. I also think that we can all agree that there is a point where shutter speed is low enough that we have no choice but to use a tripod. I'm saying that the cross-over point has moved considerably, thanks to modern IS performance, that can be in the range of 4-stops. Also, high-ISO performance has improved dramatically during the past few years, making the use of higher ISO a possibility for critical shots.</p>

<p>When readers look at their files at a pixel-level, they should not forget to consider the planned usage for the file. 50" prints demand much cleaner files than images that will be displayed at 27", 24" and smaller at 1080p</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I would hope that we can all agree that there's a shutter speed high enough for any specific lens where no "crutch" at all is needed, neither IS nor tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, David. I have gotten shots with the D800E out the right window of a car at highway speed, hand-held, at 1/8000 sec (with the ISO turned up a bit but not too far). The shots were about as crisp as I could possibly want. No comparison with a shot using a tripod would be meaningful in such a case.</p>

<p>As for 50" x 50", I would love to see<a href=" that shot of yours</strong></em></a> printed at that size! Who would have thought that such a shot was possible without a tripod not so many years ago?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks Lannie.</p>

<p>Sharp, big prints blow me away. The only problem is wall space.</p>

<p>I've got a buddy that has a big, commercial Epson printer that does all of John Fielder's prints. He's done just a few big ones for me and they blow people away. I've got a long panorama of Mount Evans, which I see out my windows and that was 7-shots, hand held, then stitched. Two grand canyon shots, with new-fallen snow at sunrise were printed 50" and were on the tripod. Most of the others are 20x30" and hand held.</p>

<p>I just bought a Canon Pixma Pro-100 that does 13x19". I'm blown away by the results and the wifey is selecting six or eight to group in our library. It's fantastic printer with a LR plug-in that makes setting up for different papers and different sizes a breeze. After rebates, it's $149. Highly recommended to anyone wanting to start getting serious about printing. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Edward, exposing to the Left of the brightest object is the same as exposing to the Right of an "Evaluative" or "Average" or "Center Weighted" meter reading. I use the ETTR nomenclature because it's more widely used in today's digital photography community.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like I said, you have it backwards. I would never increase the exposure beyond what is necessary to render mid-tones (or average tones) correctly. It is not necessary and usually counter-productive. That's the other half of the"OR" in my original statement. The only occasion where that has been necessary, in my recollection, is to render face tones in a boy choir dressed in white smocks. Even then a full stop is as much as it gets, and 1/2 is usually sufficient. On the other hand, I frequently reduce exposure in order to keep highlights in bounds. "Expose to the Right" is either a myth or simply misunderstood, possibly a relic of black and white days where loss of shadow detail was an ever-present danger.</p>

<p>DPReview has published results for ISO Invariance on several cameras, including a Nikon D750 and Canon 5Diii. While they don't do as well as the A7Rii, the results illustrate that it is a mistake to bump the original exposure to improve shadow detail. That is better done in post. Manage the highlights, and the shadows will take care of themselves.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, why do you keep discussing people who don't agree with you instead of the matter at hand? And do you really believe that they make very nice, modern lenses and cameras for you, while others have to make do with something not nearly as good? Really?<br><br>Image stabilisation is - as mentioned before - a reactive method, that cannot work perfectly. And it often makes things worse, because it 'anticipates' the wrong movement. It's the nature of the thing. "Experienced photographers" know that. Yes, from experience.<br>Fast shutterspeeds help limit (!) the effect of movement, but whether enough depends on how much movement there is (and on what you are happy with). Yes you can get lucky at 1/15. You can also run into problems at 1/1000. Again, the nature of the thing.<br>What lies at the root of the problem is movement. And there is a perfect fix: stop moving. We can't. So the thing we need to do is keep our hands off the camera. And we invented a thing that will help do that while keeping control over where we can take the camera and what we can point the camera at. Perfect for what it is supposed to do.<br>Much better than active image stabilization. Much better than fast shutters. But alas not always an option. But that does not make image stabilization better.<br>So instead of posing with unsharp images that demonstrate that you can't rely on image stabilization and had better used a tripod, just open your eyes and recognize the limitations of your tools. Then you can work with and around them. Else you shoot unsharp moon images. Use a tripod whenever possible!

[dcstep]

<p>Google ETTR and/or "Expose To The Right." Edward calls it a myth and then cites and example of where he used it.</p>

<p>Let's see your moon image Q.G.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Let's make this another thread about ETTR! Whee!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That would not be fair, David. Sturdy tracking mount. On a decent tripod.<br>It's undeniable though that your example of how 'good' image stabilisation is, is not that good. Though it would be much worse, yes, without, i guess. So i'll quote landrum: "Forgive me, but I am still left wondering what more detail you might have gotten with a tripod.". Indeed.<br><br>ETTR is an attempt to raise the signal above the noise floor without clipping. That is done to turn up the gain even more, lifting the noise floor too. Requiring more lifting of the signal. Etc. Meanwhile clipping levels do not budge. A myth? Well... Sensible? Well...<br>However, with better sensors the need for such tomfoolery is disappearing fast. That's what Edward knows but you, David, don't. So it seems.<br>So instead of a thread about some old hat, how about a thread about the new?

[dcstep]

<p>Lannie, you may be right. I thought ETTR had been hashed to death, but ignorance still abounds. Now I've got some guy saying that opening the aperture or slowing the shutter speed "lifts the signal." With the advent of more and more ISO Invariant sensors, the discussion has changed a bit. Why don't you start it? ;-) (Just kidding).</p>

<p>Q.C., so you've got a tracking mount? You must be a serious astro photographer. Why don't you show us a shot of the whole moon (it doesn't need to be full), cropped and presented here 800x800p?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, ignorance abounds. We can agree on something, David. ;-)<br>Do you think we need proof that an image taken from a sturdy support suffers very, very little motion blur? Really? After all these years we have been using tripods? In a thread that has the words "tripod" and "essential" in the title? What would be interesting in this thread is an explanation of why despite using image stabilization that moon shot is still not free of motion blur.

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G., is there a reason you don't want to provide our readers a sample? Let the readers see for themselves. You've certainly got all the equipment. I can't imagine that someone with a tracking mount wouldn't have taken an image of the moon in their first night working with it.</p>