Tripod necessary or hindrance

tesco

tesco

Suspended / Banned
Messages
141
Edit My Images
No
I do a quite a bit of landscapes and also night photography

We all know the massive advantages of using a tripod technically. However I am starting to wonder whether its better to lose some of this technical advantage with the massive flexibility of hand holding given your ability to move around and comprise and take advantage of specific light. To say nothing of not having to lug it around and set up before every shot.

There are techniques you can use of course wedging or using walls and timers etc and maybe raising the Iso not as good as a rock steady tripod of course but I guess it's a swings and roundabout thing.

Welcome your thoughts in this conundrum
 
If time, space and accessibility are no consideration, then tripod all the way when doing long exposures.

I sometimes improvise with a gorillapod or sitting the camera on a wall etc if I can't use a tripod in certain locations (mainly on top of tall buildings / busy landmarks).

I don't use a tripod for the sake of it, only when I need to. As good as gorillapods are I'd always prefer to use a proper tripod if one was available.
 
Last edited:
tesco said:
However I am starting to wonder whether its better to lose some of this technical advantage with the massive flexibility of hand holding given your ability to move around and comprise and take advantage of specific light.
Click to expand...

I have never taken my tripod out for long exposures and thought "It would be easier if I hand held this shot."

I would never go on holiday without at least a tripod and gorillapod (monopod too if there is space.
 
A tripod is both


If you do not take it you will regret it in my experience
 
Thanks for replies I do have a carbon monopod which when attached to the camera is very portable but you will still get some movement I suppose
 
Essential for these reasons amongst others...

you're limiting the possibilities for composition by relying on stones walls etc. to rest on,
limiting your chance of recovering shadow detail effectively by using high iso
reducing the ability to capture wide dynamic range.. the higher the iso the less dynamic range your camera can capture
arguably using a tripod improves your composition by slowing you down.. you're more likely to put thought into it than the "scattergun" approach that often accompanies hand holding
focusing and maximising DOF are arguably more easily achieved/accurate when tripod mounted

There's other reasons too but I guess you're getting the impression I think it's worth using a tripod ;)
 
Depends on what one is trying capture and whether there is time and space to set a tripod up. So for me, if I need a tripod for a particular shot, then it's a necessity. If I don't need a tripod, then it would be a hindrance.
 
If shooting landscapes in daylight then you probably don't need a tripod for that. It's usually bright enough for hand held, unless using ND filters to capture the motion in water and the like. At night you've got no chance unless you're camera is amazing at high ISO.

To save it being cumbersome you could just take a mini tripod. Something small enough to fit in your pocket.
 
I pretty much always take a tripod with me when shooting landscapes, even when it's sunny. I find that using a tripod forces me to slow down, and then I can fine tune everything so that each shot is as good as I can get it. If I don't take a tripod then I tend to take a photo without thinking about it as much.

There are times when it's clearly not suitable to take a tripod, and there have been occasions when walking up steep hills when I've wanted to throw the damned thing back down the hill to save weight, but overall it's usually worth carrying. Like @alfbranch said, the one time I don't take it will be the one time I'll wish I did.
 
Carl Hall said:
I pretty much always take a tripod with me when shooting landscapes, even when it's sunny. I find that using a tripod forces me to slow down, and then I can fine tune everything so that each shot is as good as I can get it. If I don't take a tripod then I tend to take a photo without thinking about it as much.

There are times when it's clearly not suitable to take a tripod, and there have been occasions when walking up steep hills when I've wanted to throw the damned thing back down the hill to save weight, but overall it's usually worth carrying. Like @alfbranch said, the one time I don't take it will be the one time I'll wish I did.
Click to expand...


Exactly my approach, being able to accurately fine tune compositions (aided by geared tripod heads), accurately place grad transitions and get the desired CPL angle, being able to shoot at base ISO (one one of my cameras that is 25 so rarely are exposures quick) all mean that 99% of my landscapes are shot with a tripod.
 
tesco said:
I do a quite a bit of landscapes and also night photography

We all know the massive advantages of using a tripod technically. However I am starting to wonder whether its better to lose some of this technical advantage with the massive flexibility of hand holding given your ability to move around and comprise and take advantage of specific light. To say nothing of not having to lug it around and set up before every shot.

There are techniques you can use of course wedging or using walls and timers etc and maybe raising the Iso not as good as a rock steady tripod of course but I guess it's a swings and roundabout thing.

Welcome your thoughts in this conundrum
Click to expand...

Necessary, unless you want to make ISO 6400 a part of your "style"?
 
simonkit said:
Essential for these reasons amongst others...

you're limiting the possibilities for composition by relying on stones walls etc. to rest on,
limiting your chance of recovering shadow detail effectively by using high iso
reducing the ability to capture wide dynamic range.. the higher the iso the less dynamic range your camera can capture
arguably using a tripod improves your composition by slowing you down.. you're more likely to put thought into it than the "scattergun" approach that often accompanies hand holding
focusing and maximising DOF are arguably more easily achieved/accurate when tripod mounted

There's other reasons too but I guess you're getting the impression I think it's worth using a tripod ;)
Click to expand...
Carl Hall said:
I pretty much always take a tripod with me when shooting landscapes, even when it's sunny. I find that using a tripod forces me to slow down, and then I can fine tune everything so that each shot is as good as I can get it. If I don't take a tripod then I tend to take a photo without thinking about it as much.

There are times when it's clearly not suitable to take a tripod, and there have been occasions when walking up steep hills when I've wanted to throw the damned thing back down the hill to save weight, but overall it's usually worth carrying. Like @alfbranch said, the one time I don't take it will be the one time I'll wish I did.
Click to expand...
markmullen said:
Exactly my approach, being able to accurately fine tune compositions (aided by geared tripod heads), accurately place grad transitions and get the desired CPL angle, being able to shoot at base ISO (one one of my cameras that is 25 so rarely are exposures quick) all mean that 99% of my landscapes are shot with a tripod.
Click to expand...

Essential for me too. If I don't take a tripod I might as well not take my camera bodies. I tend to go to the nth degree to maximise as much detail, sharpness, tonal range etc as possible is captured with every shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I would suggest that after the purchase of a camera ( and lens ) the tripod is the next most import purchase if you want to improve cityscapes / landscapes / macro etc. Not much use for street photography I 'll give you that. But to me a tripod is an essential tool if you want complete control over ISO, Speed and Aperture. I keep one in the car at all times. On the occasions I have been out and about and haven't had it with me I have regretted
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Depends for me.

In low light? That's a no-brainer, I don't leave home without it. In fact, it lives in the boot of my car.

But when the conditions allow hand-held photography, I prefer it.

I find that having a tripod with me has a habit of making me less likely to explore the scene properly, as it's all too easy to "plant" the tripod and get locked into whatever compositions are available from that position.
 
pwhysall said:
Depends for me.

In low light? That's a no-brainer, I don't leave home without it. In fact, it lives in the boot of my car.

But when the conditions allow hand-held photography, I prefer it.

I find that having a tripod with me has a habit of making me less likely to explore the scene properly, as it's all too easy to "plant" the tripod and get locked into whatever compositions are available from that position.
Click to expand...
Agree, that spot in Glencoe must have so many tripods planted in the same spot there may as well be little concrete pads installed!
 
I only attach a tripod to my D7000 if I'm taking bracketed exposure shots with HDR to mind or I'm taking long exposure shots at night time.

But, otherwise under "normal circumstances" (landscape shots in the day time or in a busy area full of people) then the tripod stays at home.
 
pwhysall said:
Depends for me.

In low light? That's a no-brainer, I don't leave home without it. In fact, it lives in the boot of my car.

But when the conditions allow hand-held photography, I prefer it.

I find that having a tripod with me has a habit of making me less likely to explore the scene properly, as it's all too easy to "plant" the tripod and get locked into whatever compositions are available from that position.
Click to expand...

Spot on!

I became aware that I was doing this a while back, so I made a concious effort to compose my shot before I attached the camera to the tripod. When I find a scene that I want to photograph I make sure to leave my tripod on my back until I've found the angle and composition that I want. Only then does the tripod come into play to hold the camera where I want it. I think it's important that the tripod moves and adjusts to where you want the camera, rather than the other way around.
 
Carl Hall said:
Spot on!

I became aware that I was doing this a while back, so I made a concious effort to compose my shot before I attached the camera to the tripod. When I find a scene that I want to photograph I make sure to leave my tripod on my back until I've found the angle and composition that I want. Only then does the tripod come into play to hold the camera where I want it. I think it's important that the tripod moves and adjusts to where you want the camera, rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
Exactly, this way you get all the benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top