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

[dcstep]

<p>Here's an interesting irony, Induro asked me to do a blog piece about using their tripod to shoot the moon. They went through my Photosteam and selected several moon shots to include in the article and ended up with a mix of both hand held and tripod mounted. I didn't say a thing, not wanting to spoil their reverie. No, they didn't pay me. Anyway, I concentrated on exposure, waiting for the angle to get up, shooting waxing and waning vs. full-moon, etc., etc. and even included an image of my rig mounted on their tripod (why hand hold when shooting an eclipse for instance.)</p>

<p>Your D800E opens up a whole new discussion of ISO Invariance and ETTR. Apparently, you can set your shutter speed and aperture and your ISO hardly matters, when shooting in Raw, of course. (It's still does matter, but nearly so much with less invariant sensors). Anyway, in Raw conversion, you simply adjust the EV and you "hardly" need worry about noise. Maybe I should avoid the term "ETTR" since it's proven to get hackles up in the past. We're not shooting Kodachrome anymore, are we?</p>

<p>Hopefully some readers "got it", about hand held vs. tripod. I still use one, but not near so much as a few years ago. Look at the shot below, that I took out my window this morning. As I took this and several back-up shots from slightly different position, another photographer was running to get her tripod in position, trying to take a "perfect" shot. I'd driven on to another perspective by the time she pulled off her shot:</p>

<p><a title="Dramatic Pre-dawn Clouds & Reflection" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1682/23936500764_1f6472e093_c.jpg" alt="Dramatic Pre-dawn Clouds & Reflection" width="800" height="400" /></a></p>

[dcstep]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It may be a while before we see that perspective again.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Landrum, why did you buy a D800E and not a D800?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Q.G, my first full-frame digital camera was the Kodak 14n. Although it had some defects, one thing that it did not have was an optical low-pass filter. I liked the sharpness/resolution, and I liked the fact that it used Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>When the D800/D800E choice came along, I finally had an opportunity to buy my first Nikon full-frame DSLR, and one that also had the sharpness of the big Kodak. I also liked the fact that it used the same battery and charger as my D7000. I like to keep things simple.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Interestingly, the pixel density of the D7000 and the D800E are likewise nearly identical. I shoot both quite often without a tripod at high shutter speeds by boosting the ISO two or three stops. Some of my lenses have VR, and some do not.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Q.G., why do you never post any significant photos on this site? You have posted on over 11,000 discussion threads, but you do not post pictures.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The difference between an e and plain D800 is much smaller than that between a handheld shot and one from a tripod.<br><br><i>"What is indeed inexplicable is that people demand to see their misconceptions vindicated by looking at someone else's images. Would that work, do you suppose?"</i><br><br>What is significant though is you two's display of the need for a good tripod.

[dcstep]

<p>Lannie said:</p>

 

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641"> </a></p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>The expected lack of contrast was made worse by thin clouds in that region. The hand held sucked right there and the tripod shot looked even worse. If you look at the whole moon shots, you can see that they're darker in that region. I probably do have a held held shot that displays that region nicely. I'll look for one.</p>

<p>BTW, I saw you over on Flickr. I've got a modest little "Astro" album. Nothing spectacular, but I could show the Tycho region in one that you like.</p>

 

[dcstep]

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

 

<blockquote>

<p>The difference between an e and plain D800 is much smaller than that between a handheld shot and one from a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that you're correct about this Q.G. I own Canon's 5DsR, which I purchased vs. the 5Ds, thinking that I might get more feather and fur detail, thanks to neutralization of the aliasing filter. I don't have a 5Ds to compare, but when I compared images of my 5DsR and my 7D MkII, which have the same pixel-pitch, I could not see a difference at 100%. I needed to go to 200% to begin to see a difference. I doubt that it would show in a very large print, even 72". I have not run into a problem with moire'.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G. said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />What is significant though is you two's display of the need for a good tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I was ready to let you off the hook and then you go and denigrate my tripod rig. Show us something better that is practical to use. It can weight 30-pounds, just show us that you actually use it. The moon is still out there, begging to have its portrait taken.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The difference between an e and plain D800 is much smaller than that between a handheld shot and one from a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Categorically so? Well, Q.G., if you read that on the internet, it must be true.</p>

<p>You are operating in an empirical vacuum on these issues. You have no experience with either the D800 or the D800E, but you have your dogmas. Reality will have to adjust itself to fit your dogmas.</p>

<p>In any case, I shoot some shots with a tripod and some without the tripod on the D800E. I am not going to let the potential of the camera limit the shots I make. The camera is my tool, my mechanical slave. I am not its. Its potentialities will not set my photographic agenda or my technique on a given shot. <strong><em>I do not shoot just to show how good my gear is.</em></strong> I shoot because I see something worth shooting, and I shoot with what I have with me, using the technique that fits the situation.</p>

<p>Q.G., sometimes I think that you love to argue more than you like to take pictures. Indeed, it would appear that you like to argue just for the sake of argument. Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words, or eleven thousand posts. <em><strong>Show us some pictures, Q.G.</strong></em></p>

<p>Trust me, Q.G., both Dave and I do know how to use tripods. Perhaps you do as well. Why don't you prove it by posting a picture or two showing your great ability with a camera--any old camera. The fact is that you are in way over your head on this discussion, due to your lack of experience with superior digital gear--including those with VR or IS or whatever. Go back to your 6x6cm film machines. They are still great machines, but they are no longer king of the roost.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

:-) The "empirical vacuum", Landrum, is - quite apparently - all yours.<br>Oh, i trust you and David to know how to use tripods. I was congratulating you two with the demonstration of why such a thing is still an essential, despite David's protestations that it isn't. Good to see how you two turned this thread around from straying away from the (already given) correct answer, passing by the moon and memories from years long gone by, back to the correct answer again. Though i get the impression you two quite forgot what you were discussing here, it's always good to have something end well. ;-)

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Q.G., look again at the lunar limb on David's comparisons on his post above on Jan 22, 2016; 11:34 p.m. I do not see any demonstrable proof that either type of shot is better than the other. In any case, we have not argued that the hand-held shots are better, simply that they are comparable--and thus often good enough. If one can show that with a "stationary" target like the moon, how much more so can one show it with birds that suddenly fly up with no warning, or spontaneous street shots, when there is no possible opportunity to set up a tripod? I still find it astonishing that David can produce printable bird shots made hand-held under such circumstances, due largely to image stabilization and the capacity to turn up ISO to 800 or so with very little noise on modern DSLRs--thus freezing the action with very high shutter speeds. If we could compare tripod-based shots made of a covey of quail with hand-held shots of the same covey of quail at the same instant, we would offer them here for comparative analysis. We cannot, and so we are showing. . . the moon. <em><strong>Anyone can do their own test shots of the moon (or other stationary or near stationary subjects), and that is what both Dave and I are encouraging. We are not asking anyone to take our word for anything.</strong></em></p>

<p>As for myself, I have not offered comparative shots, and so neither you nor anyone else can make a valid comparative inference of any kind. My shot certainly cannot be compared to David's in the region of the crater Tycho, since my shot was made when the terminator was in that region (and closer to the first quarter) whereas David's shots were made when the terminator had moved to the very edge of the lunar image (near full moon, when detail is always notoriously lacking across much of the lunar surface). What my shot shows me (for the <em>n</em>th time) is the limited resolving power of an 80mm objective--as if I needed to see more evidence of that. <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0108/moon8_mandel_big.jpg"><em><strong>Here</strong> </em></a>is a shot by Steve Mandel with a 7" refractor, and <a href="/photo/10263291&size=md"><em><strong>here</strong></em></a> is mine made with a 3.15" (80mm) refractor. I did not post it to show the limited resolving power of a small diameter objective, but that is mostly what it shows. I posted it simply to show what a small and inexpensive ($500) apochromatic refractor can do--on a tripod, at that. I would not presume to try to hand-hold a telescope for lunar or astrophotography in general, and I would not use an 80mm refractor to show fine lunar detail or to split difficult double stars.</p>

<p>Yet, I am quite sure that you already know all of the very limited technical points that I am making--and more besides. So. . . what is your point?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

My point, Landrum, is pointing out that your post (filled with ignorance about who i am, what i have, what i know, what i do and are capable of) is very much besides the point.<br>But also that, after a display of justified (i think) enthusiasm about telescopes and lunar shots, i am glad to see the thread conclude with the recognition that you should use a tripod whenever possible.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I am glad to see the thread conclude with the recognition that you should use a tripod whenever possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., I do not deal with "should" regarding photographic technique. That is for ethics.</p>

<p>I do recognize the very real superiority of tripods for much work. I have never suggested otherwise, nor has any other contributor to this thread. In spite of that fact, sometimes I will forego the use of the tripod because hand-held can be good enough for my purposes--and often is. If I suspect that I might want to print, I will use a tripod--just in case the difference might be visible in the print, as it often is.</p>

<p>I will apologetically concede that I over-reached in making inferences about your lack of experience with digital with the use of IS, VR, or the equivalent. I am quite sure that you are well-acquainted with digital photography in general--and I do not blame you for your love of the old 'Blads. I love them, too, but I am lazy where scanning is concerned. I prefer to scan now at the instant that I make the shot--thus am I now virtually exclusively in the digital camp, although the big freezer does contain a lot of film (various formats) that I keep telling myself I am going to use someday. I still love film. I just don't use it much anymore.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G. said:</p>

<p> i am glad to see the thread conclude with the recognition that you should use a tripod whenever possible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

This hasn't happened and doesn't look like it will.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I wonder what our OP thinks? It would be interesting to hear from some other observer.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

As a moral philosopher, Landrum, you know that any 'should' is derived from a recognition of bad, good and better, and that this is not (has never been) the exclusive domain of 'moral' behaviour. You also know enough not to try to suggest that any "should" would be an absolute statement and argue against it as if it it were.<br>I know you haven't disputed the role of the tripod, but our mutual friend David was rather unclear about it. In his much heated attempt (also through being rude) to convince everyone that we don't need a tripod, he also said "then a tripod is REQUIRED to get the image sharp enough." "Required", note, as in "should". ;-)<br>But, he now says, it doesn't look like that we will conclude that there is a "then" when such a thing is "REQUIRED" :-)) "Confused? Tune in to next week's episode of With modern [etc.]" ;-)

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>i am glad to see the thread conclude with the recognition that you should use a tripod whenever possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's still not quite my point of view, Q.G., on any interpretation of the word "should."</p>

<p>It might be better to (i.e., "Maybe you should. . . ") let Dave, me, and others speak for ourselves. I think that we have been remarkably clear and consistent throughout the thread. Yours is the kind of parsing that can drive away readers and participants, so please just let-it-go. Argument for the sake of argument is not why people (most people) come to Photo.net.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Then Q.G. took that out of context and said:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know you haven't disputed the role of the tripod, but our mutual friend David was rather unclear about it. In his much heated attempt (also through being rude) to convince everyone that we don't need a tripod, he also said "then a tripod is REQUIRED to get the image sharp enough."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Who's "rude?"<br>

<br>

My point was crystal clear to anyone with the least bit of reading comprehension. I gave an example, which I think is actually pretty rare these days, where one would actually use a tripod. Q.G. makes the preposterous leap, bordering on lying. to try to support his case.<br>

<br>

Q.C., since you're refusing to take a shot of the moon to show us how a tripod will aid in shooting the moon, why don't we each shoot a dollar bill taped to the wall? Somewhere I thought you said that you had an 80mm lens, so you can shoot with an 80mm prime and I'll shoot hand held at 80mm and at 1/100-sec., using my 70-200mm zoom. You must also shoot at 1/100-sec., but that's the only essential criteria. Let's make the distance the same, so, using a full-frame or crop sensor (you tell me which) the corners of the bill will touch the edges of the uncropped image. You don't even need to leave your house to do that.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David, you should start reading your own posts. Better still, start thinking about what to write before you do.<br><br>Landrum: "you should" or "maybe you should"... let me put it in David's well chosen words: "to anyone with the least bit of reading comprehension" 'maybe' it should be "crystal clear" that there is indeed a good deal of parsing going on (or again as David puts this: "preposterous leap, bordering on lying" being made), with David's "REQUIRED" (his emphasis) being taken as a quite friendly advice while "should whenever possible" is not letting people think for themselves. Same would go for the OP's "essential" - 'what does he mean! How dare he suggest such a thing! We decide for ourselves, thank you!' Come on... really... Just read the way David has been bending this thread time and again, see what you are siding with. "Argument for argument's sake" you say. You've been looking in the wrong place, i'd say. <br><br>The answer to the OP's question is still: yes. Image stabilisation can only do so much, and there is still quite a lot that requires a tripod.

[dcstep]

<p>Wow, when faced with clear evidence of his own "bending the thread" by carefully selecting words out of context, Q.G. counterattacks with no support.</p>

<p>Q.G. your ploy is clear for all to see.</p>

<p>Q.G., what do you think of my dollar bill shot proposal?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I think most folks on this thread understand when a tripod is needed or not. If not experiment and work it out.</p>

<p>"David, you should start reading your own posts. Better still, start thinking about what to write before you do" Q.G</p>

<p>Time to have a nice cup of tea and a digestive biscuit, Q.G. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I use a tripod for self portraits and don't use one for selfies.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Wow, when faced with clear evidence of his own "bending the thread" by carefully selecting words out of context, Q.G. counterattacks with no support.</p>

<p>Q.G. your ploy is clear for all to see.</p>

<p>Q.G., what do you think of my dollar bill shot proposal?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Fred, do you find a selfie-stick indispensable? :-)</p>