L0n3Gr3yW0lf
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Somerset, UK
- Name
- Ovi
I know it sounds like a strange question for some of you, mostly the film generation. But I have been wondering this more often lately. How important or useful is a tripod for stationary subjects, be it landscape, buildings or nature in general.
I always had a dislike for tripods because I prefer to be mobile. Sure you can carry a tripod with you to most places and their very portable ones as well (I do own a compact travel K&F Concept one). But it takes time to unfold one, set up the right angle and leveled horizon, mount and dismount the camera, etc.
I have been a digital photographer only because I came late into my passion for photography in the late 2000. My experience has been overwhelmingly on Micro Four Thirds and half of it with IBIS. Most of my experience and usage of tripods have been for long exposures (mostly light trails and city scapes) and astrophotography.
During daylight I have rarely found I needed a stable platform when most of the time I have high enough shutter speed above the focal length. (And with the increase DoF of Micro Four Thirds I rarely needed to go past f 11 to avoid diffraction).
Now that I am a 35mm FF user I can't say I have felt the need for a tripod still. I have IBIS on my (past, now sold) Sony a7C and my (current) Sony a7R II but I don't tend to adhere to the "classical" close to infinity (and beyond ... Sorry I couldn't help myself) DoF for landscape by shooting f 16 or f 22. I still shoot f 11 at most, f 8 sometimes, f 5.6 when I want some DoF and f 4 or f 2.8 because I use DoF as a tool for layering subjects and focus into my images.
I use Electronic First Curtain to avoid shutter shock and Electronic Shutter when I need to so I don't think I'm losing to much sharpness by shooting handheld.
Most cameras have IBIS now, most systems are lighter then 1.5 KGs for Pro grade lenses and 1 KGs for Consumer grade lenses, most cameras have Electronic Shutter and Electronic First Curtain to avoid Shutter Shock, lenses are significantly sharper even wide open them film era lenses so no need to stop down to get the most out of a lens.
I am asking because I see aYouTuber, ok that might be a bit unfair this individual is a pretty amazing landscape photographer first (that just educates via YouTube videos), put a Fujifilm X-T3/4 camera on a tripod in mid day for a landscape image. But I gave seen other photographers that have YouTube channels that they alway have a tripod with them and uses their camera on a tripod 99% of the time. Is that really necessary these days. Also because I will have a trip next week and potential to do some nice landscape images and wondering if there's any point to bring a tripod with me.
PS. For my own reasoning and preference of not using tripods (unless the subject type really requires it) is I don't have the time to spend on a single spot or with a subject so I prefer mobility, as well as I have a lot of subject types preferences then before and my attention is rarely on just one outcome/result per outing. I have a day job and my free time feels a lot more precious now then it used to be 10 years ago. Though I should try some exercising of doing one type of photography in a day.
I always had a dislike for tripods because I prefer to be mobile. Sure you can carry a tripod with you to most places and their very portable ones as well (I do own a compact travel K&F Concept one). But it takes time to unfold one, set up the right angle and leveled horizon, mount and dismount the camera, etc.
I have been a digital photographer only because I came late into my passion for photography in the late 2000. My experience has been overwhelmingly on Micro Four Thirds and half of it with IBIS. Most of my experience and usage of tripods have been for long exposures (mostly light trails and city scapes) and astrophotography.
During daylight I have rarely found I needed a stable platform when most of the time I have high enough shutter speed above the focal length. (And with the increase DoF of Micro Four Thirds I rarely needed to go past f 11 to avoid diffraction).
Now that I am a 35mm FF user I can't say I have felt the need for a tripod still. I have IBIS on my (past, now sold) Sony a7C and my (current) Sony a7R II but I don't tend to adhere to the "classical" close to infinity (and beyond ... Sorry I couldn't help myself) DoF for landscape by shooting f 16 or f 22. I still shoot f 11 at most, f 8 sometimes, f 5.6 when I want some DoF and f 4 or f 2.8 because I use DoF as a tool for layering subjects and focus into my images.
I use Electronic First Curtain to avoid shutter shock and Electronic Shutter when I need to so I don't think I'm losing to much sharpness by shooting handheld.
Most cameras have IBIS now, most systems are lighter then 1.5 KGs for Pro grade lenses and 1 KGs for Consumer grade lenses, most cameras have Electronic Shutter and Electronic First Curtain to avoid Shutter Shock, lenses are significantly sharper even wide open them film era lenses so no need to stop down to get the most out of a lens.
I am asking because I see a
PS. For my own reasoning and preference of not using tripods (unless the subject type really requires it) is I don't have the time to spend on a single spot or with a subject so I prefer mobility, as well as I have a lot of subject types preferences then before and my attention is rarely on just one outcome/result per outing. I have a day job and my free time feels a lot more precious now then it used to be 10 years ago. Though I should try some exercising of doing one type of photography in a day.
Last edited: