Can you take landscape pics without a tripod? Which lense?

[lynnwood42]

Question, I am 'somewhat' a beginner. I have a Minolta Maxxum 5 and

have 2 lenses: 1)28-80 (3.5-5.6) and 2)75-300 (4.5-5.6). My

question is that I am looking for a lense to use mainly for 2 things

and would like to take these pictures WITHOUT A TRIPOD,...if that is

possible. 1)Pictures of landscapes with EVERYTHING in the scene in

FOCUS and (not as important) 2)Pictures of someone playing sports

indoors. I really do not want to use a tripod. Is it possible to do

these shots without one? I was wondering if the Minolta brand

lens:50mm f/1.4 would work??? (Is that a D lense does anyone

know?). OR.....is there something different anyone recommends for

these situations? I prefer not to spend 'too' much $. Thanks for

your input!! Also....I do like the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 D lense, but

it is too expensive ...are there any less expensive alternatives?

Thanks again!

[tree]

<p><i>Pictures of landscapes with EVERYTHING in the scene in FOCUS

and (not as important)</i></p>

 

<p>You can certainly do this without a tripod if the film is fast enough and

the light conditions allow. You will want to be stopped way down on your

lense, which in both examples you give is f/5.6. Using a 200 or 400 speed

film you will be able to hand-hold, particularly at the wider focal lengths.

However, as you zoom the effects of hand-shake become greater and you

will want a tripod.</p>

 

<p>With regards to keeping everything in focus, search for information on

hyperfocal focusing.</p>

 

<p>Why do you not want to use a tripod?</p>

 

<p><i>Pictures of someone playing sports indoors.</i></p>

 

<p>You want a fast film (800 or faster) and a fast lense (faster than

anything you have) to do this well. The 50/1.4 would be good, though unless

you are close to the person you're shooting you probably will not be happy

with the results. Even with a tripod unless you have a fast film and a fast

lense you'll get blurred motion.</p>

[stephen hazelton]

Step outside, snap off a few pictures, and you'll have your answer.

 

Seriously, yes, you can take pictures without a tripod, even at 300mm. However, the longer the focal length, and the longer the exposure, the more fuzziness you'll get from camera shake. For everything-in-focus, minamal camera shake, try the 28mm range, or maybe a 24mm f/2.8. Shoot at f/11 or so, and check the depth-of-field scale on the lens.

 

For the indoor sports, you'll have trouble taking photos with a tripod, especially if you try to tighten the swivel down. Try handheld with fast film, or use tripod and let it swivel freely, or use a monopod.

[pdoyle]

Technically speaking, you can't have everything in a typical landscape picture in perfect focus, but you can have the next best thing: a few things in perfect focus and everything else close enough that it looks like it's focused. :) This is what is referred to as "depth of field," more DOF being what you are looking for in your landscape photos. The primary way to accomplish this is to stop down your lens aperture (note: the f/5.6 aperture number is not really the "stopped down" aperture ... it's actually the *largest* aperture for your lenses at their longest focal lengths). Those lenses probably stop down to f/16 or f/22, I bet. You want to be towards that f/16-22 end of the aperture range.

 

However, that small aperture with its nice depth of field comes with a price: slower shutter speeds. Since you want to handhold your camera, slow shutter speeds make it more likely that you end up with blurry shots due to small movements in your hands, which no one can control past a certain point. The blur that results will be less visible if you view your photos at small sizes (e.g. 4"x6") and will be progressively more visible as you enlarge/zoom in.

 

Using faster film (say, good 400 speed film) may be your best balance between decent grain and sharpness and the fastest possible shutter speed at a given aperture setting. I don't know Minolta equipment but the kind of image stabilization technology that Canon has in some lenses ("IS") would also help you handhold steadier shots at slower shutter speeds... Since you're stopping down for depth of field, the greater speed of the lenses you mention (i.e. "f/1.4") won't get you much for landscapes. Of course, there are usually other benefits to using expensive lenses.

[dougmiles]

Everything in focus, huh? :-) That gets easier the more you stop down the lens, and also as you choose shorter focal lengths... that is, depth of field increases.

 

For instance, with a 50mm lens at f/16, focused to about 18 feet, everything from 8 feet on out to infinity will be acceptably sharp. In this instance, that 18 feet is called the "hyperfocal distance" for f/16. It's pretty easy to set on lenses that have a depth-of-field scale; just focus the lens so that the infinity symbol is opposite the mark on the scale corresponding to the lens opening you've set. Then look at the other side of the scale for the other mark corresponding to the lens opening you've set, and there you'll see the near-distance that will be sharp.

 

With a 28mm lens, you could achieve the same range of acceptable focus, 8 feet to infinity, at f/5.6, so you see it gets easier at shorter focal lengths. This allows you to use a higher shutter speed or take a hand-held picture in dimmer light than with the 50mm. But of course the 28mm gives you a different picture than the 50, with a wider angle of view.

 

I'd suggest you use your 28-80mm zoom hand-held with ISO 200 film, and make some landscape pictures in the range of 28mm to around 50mm to get a feel for what you'll get. Your zoom probably does NOT have the handy depth-of-field scale I mentioned, but your camera manual is likely to have charts with the same info in better detail. But this exercise should help you decide what prime lens might suit your needs best.

 

You can do indoor sports with your zoom too (and you may not need a different lens for this at all), but you'll probably need a faster film, maybe ISO 800 as was suggested earlier, or even 1600. There will be a trade-off in grain and sharpness for the dim-light action.

 

Another idea you might consider is a mono-pod. Faster and less intrusive than a tripod, and you wouldn't be using a cable release, but helps a lot with the slower hand-holdable shutter speeds!

[craig_gillette]

I doubt you'll find anything reasonably priced which supports both objectives except the 50mm f 1.8, maybe the 50mm f 1.4. The indoor sports requires fast speeds and fast film and fast lenses and a longer reach. The 50mm doesn't give much reach but you can get speed. It can be stopped down for landscapes as well. Stopping down for landscapes increases exposure length and that really will call for a tripod. It's probably a pretty good general compromise between wide and tele for landscapes as well.

 

The lenses you have aren't really fast so they'll need fast films and likely flash for indoor sports and since flash is often a no-no, really fast films. Yet those aren't the best films for landscapes.

 

If you are selective about landscape subjects, you may find they work well. Although, maximizing sharpness really calls for a tripod there too. I wans't disappointed with handheld work with my my 28-105 or 75-300 with Supra 400 (picked for outdoor soccer pics - good skin and handled garish uniform colors well) but I wasn't getting enlargements either.

 

Selecting a view without a close foreground to stretch all the way to the distance will reduce the need for extreme depth of field.

[radu_lupsa]

I would first sugest you to reconsider the no-tripod issue, esspecially for landscape. For landscape, the tripod is useful not only for eliminating the camera shake, but also for giving you time to elaborate the composition.

 

Landscapes: working without tripod means choosing a compromise between depth of field (i.e. having almost every distance in focus), film speed (personally I find the grain of ISO400 films quite disturbing) and risk of camera shake. With *very good* technique (and some luck), you can probably get to 1/15s or even 1/10s handheld at 28mm or 35mm focal distance, and at an aperture setting of f/8 to f/16 with ISO 100 film.

 

Sport indoors: that's a different problem... I'd get a good flash if it is allowed (NG >= 25 metric or 80 in feet), and/or high-speed film, and/or some good (used) 100mm f/2 or f/2.8, or 135 f/2.8 . Maybe someone else could point you to the right direction in this lens matter. Then no tripod would be ok.

[roger c]

Er...Tom, these lenses aren't f/5.6 stopped down. They're f/5.6 wide open at their longest focal length.

[stephan_pejic]

You can get stability without a tripod. Lean against a tree or wall, put the camera against a tree or fence post, sit it on a rock (a small bean bag and the camera's timer are useful in this case) or just sit down and brace the camera against your knee.

[ken_schroeder]

Lyn, I think you are handicapping yourself by not using a tripod. I agree with the earlier post about the tripod benefitting both sharpness and composition. Tripods last a long time. Mine are both over twenty years old. A good tripod is a joy to use. Even badly designed tripods have long lives. A careful choice is well rewarded.

 

Regarding lenses, I think the standard lenses are very underrated. The normal lenses are very sharp, fast, and compact. I suggest you consider a 50mm, a 35mm and whatever Minolta makes in the 85 to 105 range. Except for low light, the fastest, most expensive lenses are not necessary.

[raczoliver]

You can take decent landscapes without a tripod if there is sufficient light. As for which lens to use, for me, landscapes range from 17 to 300mm depending on the subject, but the wider it is, the more can be included in the picture, and the easier it is to get everything reasonably in focus, plus handshake becomes a less potential problem. 28mm or 24mm are very popular focal lengths for landscapes.

 

To have the most things possible in focus you have to stop down the lens, which means a small aperture (eg. 16 or 22), not a large one (eg. 5.6)! This also means you have to use a slower shutter speed to get correct exposure, and this is where a tripod comes in handy.

 

Lynn, why is it so important for you not to use a tripod? If you are afraid of carrying it around, very light tripods are available too. If you think it is too expensive, look around, I'm sure you can find some cheap, light and compact tripods. They might not be very steady if there are several kilos on them, but should be OK with your equipment. For basic use, you don't have to buy a good tripod. As long as it holds the camera steady, it does the work. The use of a tripod also enables you to use slower films.

 

Indoors sports photography is a bigger challenge. A Large aperture telephoto lens is recommended, but that is expensive. The other choice is to use a very high speed film, like ISO 1600. The tripod is not always that useful here, as most of the times the motion of the subject causes more blur than handshake. And that cannot be helped with a tripod.

 

If you are a beginner, you might want to know more about the basic things like aperture, shutter speed, lenses... This is a good thing to read in your spare time:

 

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/photo_world/kumon/index.htm

Enjoy!

[ken_schroeder]

Lynn, I have been spending much of today in the darkroom developing film. I have been thinking about your question while shuffling sheet film (4x5). I certainly don't mean to brag, but my negatives are very sharp. Two main factors help this. 1) I use a tripod and 2) I happen to be shooting 4x5. If I had to shoot either 35mm on a tripod or handheld 4x5, I would choose the tripod mounted 35mm any day.

 

Yes, you can get "decent" results handheld, but why settle for decent when you can do much better? Subjects like landscape, still life, architecture, and portraiture just work better with a tripod.

[James G. Dainis]

Is there any particular reason why you don't want to use a tripod for landscapes? I agree that not only will the sharpness of the image icrease but you will <I>feel</I> more like a photographer not a snap shot taker. It also gives you more time to inspect what you are seeing in the viewfinder as it is locked on one vista. Good critical inspection will greatly improve your photos. <BR>

Hand held? Bring the camera up, look through the viewfinder "That doesn't look quite right, maybe more to the left, yeah, that's better" click. How much time and thought went into that? You may have seen more sky and trees come into the scene but did you also notice that Stop sign that crept into the bottom left of the vewfinder?

[lynnwood42]

I prefer not to carry the tripod just because I think it would kind of be a hastle to carry more equipment than I already have. I guess I would prefer the higher film speed to the tripod. I currently carry a moderately sized camera bag and I feel that the tripod would just be too much to carry on a routine basis. (Maybe...occassionally I wouldn't mind). Possibly if I knew of a great ULTRA SMALL folding, light tripod I may consider getting one. Any ideas??

[kristian_s_oslash_rensen]

<b>You have to suffer for personal as well as pictorial beauty!</b>

<p>

Basically there is no way I could have made 95% of my landscape and nature images without a tripos. The low light around dawn and dusk requires shutter speeds in the 1/20 s. - several seconds range to give f/8-f/16 to get adequate depth of field with 100 asa film. Polarizers eats some light as well.

<p>

Without a tripod you would be restricted to shooting when the sun is high, the clouds are few, the shadows are hard and the color of the light and its reflections cold and hard. The only exception being when you can find a tree or something to press the camera against for stability for the longer exposures.

<p>

A fast lens is no substitute for a tripod, because you need f/8-f/16 to get adequate depth of firld for images where you are having both a foreground and a background and you want both to be in focus. Only wiht images without foreground and middle ground and pure background can you get away with f/5.6 and larger apertures, but such images are a minority among landscape images.

<p>

I am routinely carrying a Manfrotto 055 with an Arca B1 ball head and their wonderfull quick release system. It has been with me on many bike trips, strapped to the bike, it has been carried up and down muddy slopes and deep into forests to be set up in the middle of streams and carried around on foot for many km at a time. For short bicycle trips of only a few km. I just hold it in my hand while driving.

[mark_jacobs1]

If you're a beginner what I would recommend would be to go down to Walmart and pick up one of their cheap tripods. It will be better than not having one at all and will be much lighter weight and much less expensive than a good tripod. From using this cheapo tripod you will probably begin to learn the importance of a tripod for landscape photography. Especially when you begin to take shots at times other than high noon. Some of the cheap tripods have hooks on the center column where you can hang your camera bag for a little more support. You'll most likely come to the conclusion down the line that you want a good tripod. I don't think there is any sense in putting any substantial amount of money into one until you value their worth and put down some money for the features that you'll need in a tripod. As has been said above, you'll eventually start picking up on other tools like polarizers or other ND filters. All of these are going to continue to reduce the amount of light reaching the film and further necessitate the use of a tripod.... but the important point is that your pictures will improve because of it! So do you want creature comfort or good shots.