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

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

Dave, that was not my Celestron shot. The only telescope that I have kept is my Orion 80mm ED.

--Lannie

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Lannie said:

Holy cow, Dave! Paynes Prairie! I spent nine years at UF doing graduate work (across three disciplines) and teaching PT at UF. I love these. Great place to get snake shots, too!

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/albums/72157632475348102" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/albums/72157632475348102</a>

The first flying wild turkey that I ever saw was near the north edge of Paynes Prairie, perhaps in 1976, the year before I got my first SLR, a used Miranda with a 50mm f/1.4. I was carrying an Instamatic the day I saw the wild turkey flying and have no souvenir of that day. I'm not sure I even got a shot off, I was in such awe.

</blockquote>

I hope this won't end our friendship, but I'm an FSU grad. ;-)

I was down at G'ville when my brother had a successful heart surgery at the exceptional Shands. I only had one morning available and it started out overcast and foggy. The flying birds were pretty much a bust, but then I stumbled on those beautiful turkeys, that let me follow them at a respectful distance. I would have liked more clear shots, but beggars can't be choosers.

I'd be there every day, if I lived down there.

q.g._de_bakker · January 22, 2016

David, still at it? I'm almost (note: almost) tempted to post a handheld shot, taken in rather adverse conditions for handheld photography, that i managed to get tack sharp. That would be a better demonstration of handheld shots than your obviously motion blurred moon shot. Knowing that i have managed to get sharp shots handheld (in poor conditions too), i still stand by that "use a tripod whenever possible" advise. That's "experienced photographers" for ya... It - unlike most (don't want to appear ungracious by telling the whole truth ;-) ) your rantings - just makes sense.

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

It was a table top ball head and with an oldie but goodie Novoflex slide rail that I picked up for twenty dollars at an auction, and under it all a microphone stand with a 5/8" stud,- love to improvise...

</blockquote>

Maybe you can patent that rig, Gerry. I've been known to improvise.

Gosh, I do love talking about tripods. I suspect I've got grooves on my shoulders from carrying them around. We spend far too much time talking about cameras, always cameras, it seems. Even the lenses don't get the attention they deserve. Tripods? You would think they don't exist to look at the number of new threads about them.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

Tell you what Lannie, hopefully I'll get another good opportunity in the next day or so and I'll try 1,000 and crop down to some small craters, just to see. Oh well, and while I'm at it, I could pull the tripod out of the trunk to see what it can do to improve. ;-)

</blockquote>

Dave, just past first quarter, please do see if you can pick up those little craters between Copernicus and Eratosthenes. I imagine that they tend to waft in and out with the thermals on smaller scopes. I am not sure that I have ever seen them myself on one of my own. Frankly, I doubt it. I am not really a lunar photographer, and my scopes were never that big.

The Celestron used in the shot posted above had a 2800mm f.l., I believe!

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

I hope this won't end our friendship, but I'm an FSU grad. ;-)

</blockquote>

It's strange, Dave, but somehow I never got around to seeing the Mighty Gators play. My alma mater was Furman, a school of about 1400 students when I was there in the sixties.

--Lannie

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Puts my measly 1,000mm to shame, but can you hand hold it? ;-) Oh yeah, no IS.

It's looking promising today, with a clear sky at 1 p.m. When I do the tripod shot, I'll even turn off the IS, even though it's a Canon. I'll eve lock the mirror up and do remote release. Right now, wind is low, so I've got a sporting chance. I'll put up a couple pixel-peepers' dreams, along with the 800x800p whole moon shots.

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Lannie, we're around the same vintage. I graduated in '69 with a BS in Accounting.

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

I'm almost (note: almost) tempted to post a handheld shot, taken in rather adverse conditions for handheld photography, that i managed to get tack sharp.

</blockquote>

Not to be combative, Q.G., but I would love to see what you got. They've got to be better than my own hand-held shots

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

Dave, I posted above about what a small scope could show between the craters Copernicus and Eratosthenes. Here is small crop from a shot I posted earlier (<a href="/photo/10263531&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/10263531&size=md</a> ) using the Orion 80mm EF refractor and the Canon 50D. I wonder how the D800E with the same small refractor would do for showing more detail of those tiny craters between the larger craters. (I believe that the Orion 80mm ED has a focal length of 750mm. Its objective is quite good for its size, but an objective of that size has obvious limitations, even with the best of techniques.)

Viewed large (as in the attached shot), I can just begin to see the small craters. They are obvious on the Celestron shot posted above. For that matter, my D7100 would have even greater pixel density than the D800E and ought to show even more.

Copernicus is at the bottom and Eratosthenes is at the top right. I think that I used the low-end Celestron equatorial mount and tripod on this one, but without the motor drive running. (There was no need.)

<a href="http://www.astropix.com/HTML/Planetary/Copernicus_Eratosthenes.HTM">THIS LINK </a>shows Jerry Lodriguss's shot that I posted earlier for which he used a big Celestron with the heavy Takahashi mount. In his shot, Copernicus is to the left with Eratosthenes to the right. The line of small craters between them that I am talking about runs from top to bottom on his shot. The small craters are very, very obvious using that scope--with a 2800mm focal length. I should point out that that Takahashi mount that he used has a precision motor drive. I have no idea which tripod legs he used--and it probably doesn't matter very much as long as they were sturdy. The mount and the optics of the Celestron were surely the limiting factors in his ability to get such great resolution of those tiny craters.

--Lannie<div></div>

Bill C · January 22, 2016

David, this is the lens you want to try out.http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

Brian, holding it in photo near the bottom, used to call on us periodically. I came across the photo somewhere and we were laughing about

the lens. He said it's just like carrying a toddler around, except that it doesn't wiggle around. I'm sure they offered to let us play with it, but

that's so far away from our business use it would just be a waste of their time. Although it might have satisfied some prurient interests, if

that's a proper use of the word.

Since I have to make this somehow relevant to the thread, it doesn't have IS, so it should be used on a tripod.

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

Bill, Dave wants to try using that lens hand-held--without IS.

As for my own poor shot, here it is blown up even more. (Again, Copernicus is at the bottom and Eratosthenes is at the top right.) I can see the tiny craters, but I cannot see any detail. This is where an 80mm refractor can get a bit frustrating, although I would bet that someone here has done it and gotten a crisp shot of those small craters with comparable equipment.

Again, <a href="http://www.astropix.com/HTML/Planetary/Copernicus_Eratosthenes.HTM">HERE</a> is Jerry Lodriguss's shot for comparison. That is an exquisite wavy line of small craters that his Celestron shot clearly shows! That wavy line of small craters is almost equidistant from Copernicus and Eratosthenes on his shot, running top to bottom.

Dave, I know that you can do better that I have on that area (that wavy line of small craters) between the two larger craters.

More than that, I can't help but wonder what your shot might have shown regarding that wavy line of small craters had you used a tripod. Sorry, but I just can't help but wonder.

--Lannie<div></div>

Landrum Kelly · January 22, 2016

While I am on this no doubt now tiresome topic, <a href="http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/copernicus-and-eratosthenes/">HERE</a> is what a shot in Sky and Telescope shows of the same area. The timing was perfect here, since the shadows were stretching on out and showing maximum detail.

Those are wondrous rills of all sorts running down the sides of Copernicus--and onto (and into) the adjacent plain. Shots like this are why resolution freaks are, well, resolution freaks.

<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100928-copernicus_prt.htm">HERE</a> is a NASA link to a discussion of the age of lunar features in the same area.

I have to confess that my lust for more resolution can be as equally sated with details of leaves on trees right here on earth--good old landscape shots! When my lust for more resolution is running high, I carry a tripod.

--Lannie

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Took some moon shots tonight, but less than ideal light, due to almost full moon. I'll post them later and then come back in a few weeks and try with a waxing quarter.

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Bill said:

Since I have to make this somehow relevant to the thread, it doesn't have IS, so it should be used on a tripod.

</blockquote>

I think you're right about that. ;-)

dcstep · January 22, 2016

Conditions weren't great. It was almost a full moon, reducing shadows and contrast, plus thin clouds kept getting in the way. Still, we can get a good idea of hand held 1,000mm vs. tripod mounted. Differences will be smaller at shorter focal lengths:

Tripod - Whole Moon

Hand Held Whole Moon

Tripod - Major Crop

Hand Held - Major Crop

Technicals: Canon 7D MkII, EF 500mm f/4L IS II, EF 2.0x TC-III, ISO 800, f/8.0, 1/800-sec. Tripod shots were on a Induro 6-ply carbon fiber tripod, model C414, with an Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick, with LiveView, soft shutter, remote release, IS off and 30-sec. to allow tripod to settle. The IS was on for the hand held shots and I used no bracing at all.

Sorry about the clouds. I tried for 30-minutes to get a totally clear shot with both setups, but it was getting worse and worse when I quit. For the tight crop, I tried to find areas with contrast and equal light. All were converted from Raw with the same settings, but final levels ended up slightly different due to the clouds.

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

THE BIG SHOOT-OUT IN THE SKY

Well, David, the nice thing about the moon is that we can all use the same test subject! On a given night, the same craters and their shadows will be there for everyone to capture and compare--provided that the skies are clear.

I'm sufficiently impressed--truly impressed--by your hand-held results. I am sure that members of the other camp will have something to say. Best of all, they can trot out their own test results.

No need to be shy any more, guys. Q.G., the moon is naked and waiting.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

Dave, I am also drawn to the Tycho region in your shots--not that now is the ideal time for showing contrast there.

<a href="/photo/10263291&size=lg">HERE </a>is one of mine of that region on my big old Orion 80mm ED APO on my Canon 50D. (I see now that that f/7.5 objective has a focal length of 600mm, not 750 as I mistakenly said earlier.) Time to haul that babe out of the attic and stick it on a more modern camera. (I used an old Celestron tripod for my shot.)

The nice thing about using the moon is that even urban dwellers can get good images on the right night: light pollution cannot begin to compete with the brightness of the moon.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

RUBBLE BY HUBBLE

<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/10/hubble_photo_of_the_moon_the_crater_tycho_up_close_and_personal.html">HERE</a> is what the Hubble Space Telescope got of Tycho. Look at that central mountain shot way down the page! <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/565736main_M162350671LE_full.jpg">HERE</a> it is up close. Feast your eyes on the rubble on the floor of the crater while you are at it, resolution freaks.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

WE ARE ALL RESOLUTION FREAKS NOW. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now">Milton Friedman</a>

While we are talking resolution, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/LA_Mount_Wilson_Pano.jpg">HERE</a> is the L.A. basin from the Mt. Wilson Observatory.

--Lannie

dcstep · January 23, 2016

Lannie, love the shot of the mountain in the crater Tycho. Pretty amazing. Of course, the Hubble is weightless, so I would suggest hand holding. ;-)

Is that your pano of the L.A. basin? Really nice. I would use a tripod for that one.

When I get a few minutes, I'll zoom into the Tycho region on my hand held shot and put it up here.

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

Is that your pano of the L.A. basin? Really nice. I would use a tripod for that one.

</blockquote>

Dave, that one was made with one of the two big scopes at the Mt. Wilson observatory! (Well, no, not really. I see that someone did some stitching to get that one. It was made from Mt. Wilson, though.)

I see that no one has responded to your challenge yet. . . .

--Lannie

dcstep · January 23, 2016

Lannie said:

I see that no one has responded to your challenge yet. . . .

</blockquote>

Well, when I originally put it out there, I really expected that there would be a response. Having one group do the tripod and one do the hand held might have added an element of independence, with each trying to put their best foot forward. As you say, the same subject is available to all of us, but it might take a few days to get clear sky. Believe me, I didn't kick the tripod and I processed them exactly alike. Someone with a big wooden tripod might have done better than my relatively massive carbon fiber, but almost nobody will carry one of those around.

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

Dave, as useful as tripods can be, the tripod companies probably don't want to hear what you are saying.

I have to say that my own Orion 80mm f/7.5 600mm f.l. ED APO refractor (whew!) can, at only $500 (when I bought mine back in early 2007), match many more expensive lenses when used with a tripod. Then again, it is a dedicated telescope, albeit a very small one--not to say "tiny." Any refractor over 3" commands some respect. (Its objective lens is also apochromatic, way beyond the achromatic objective on the first telescope that my father gave me in 1958.)

On the other hand, if one has the high-end bodies and lenses that you have, there are a lot of shots that can be done as well hand-held as with a tripod--if not better. Yes, there are applications where a tripod is essential, but what is striking from all of the give-and-take in this thread is how often it is that one can get high-quality, printable files without using a tripod.

Frankly, for my kind of work (or play), I am not using either tripod or flash very much anymore. It is really nice to just be able to head out the door with a camera and lens (or two) and be able to come back with a very wide range of quality shots made under widely varying conditions. The D3s alone changed a lot of things for me in night shooting, although most of my best shots are still made with a tripod. As for the D800E, there has been the shocker: I really am getting great shots using VR and with the ISO boosted a bit so that I am shooting very high shutter speeds. People tell me how much I am losing by not using a tripod with such a camera, but very often I really am not losing anything at all that is measurable or even noticeable to my eye.

Some people are going to keep denying that, given that the D800E is a 36-mp camera, but it is true.

That is why your challenge is very worthy. You have evidence of the virtual equivalence of tripod-based shots and hand-held shots--for at least some types of shots. Those in denial only need to make their own comparison shots.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 23, 2016

Yet, yet, <a href="http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/895">some shots</a> are going to remain beyond the reach of our primitive instruments--with or without tripods.

--Lannie

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in