How important is a tripod for you?

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 :p ... 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 YouTuber, 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.
 
Last edited:
I own two tripods - a Manfrotto and a Sirui - and they're both quality pieces. Actually, I have three if you count my small tabletop Oben. And the truth is, I rarely use any of them. So there you have it. Of the three, the Oben gets used the most.

Like you, I prefer to be mobile and, somehow, I have been blessed with steady hands. Decent camera and/or lens stabilization helps as well. But I have low-light shots taken at a quarter or a half second that have worked out just fine.
 
I admire the work of Thomas Heaton, Simon Baxter and Mike Moats, to name only a few! I have watched most of their numerous videos on YouTube, and I don't remember any of them taking shots with camera not on a tripod. It all depends on how serious you are about obtaining the best quality that your camera is capable of Ovi. Didn't someone once say 'the sharpest lens that I have is a tripod'!
 
I don't do enough landscape to speak with authority but... I, too, mainly do not use any camera support while shooting in the wild. I prefer to use the IBIS to compensate. I have noticed, though, in successive shots in a short burst at close to medium range of, say, a heron or such, subtle frame-to-frame discrepanies of perspective often become apparent. These can be great enough to make exposure stacking for noise reduction a no-go. This leads me to believe that, while camera stabilization is usually a good-enough workaround, it is not capable of reliably rendering captures as finely detailed as would be available from a perfectly still camera. If I were intending to make and sell large prints I expect I would happily join the tripod crowd. Web sharing? Forget it! This sort of consideration is Thom Hogan's hobby horse - optimum, as opposed to good-enough, data capture.
 
I agree with all @L0n3Gr3yW0lf says. I am a sharpness fanatic but I don't feel I need a tripod for 99 % of my shots, which include landscapes too but less importantly so than cityscapes and street shots. Image stabilization goes a long way in providing critical sharpness in my experience, be it in the lens and/or the camera; I have the Sony A7R4 and stabilized zooms but I mostly use MF primes.

Especially with wide-angle lenses I prefer hand-held shooting because it makes me much more agile in finding the exact framing by moving around with feet, arms and hands; on a tripod that is much more cumbersome, up to a point where I lose my patience. At 50mm and longer a tripod works much better. And a tripod improves picture quality at close-up because small body movements makes it difficult to keep focus exactly on the desired spot; CDAF with an autofocus lens helps with that, but not always.

All that said, I hardly ever take a tripod with me on an outing, it gets in my way way too often.
 
I shoot mostly travel photos. I have carried tripods from time to time, but my go-to is a carbon monopod with an Acratech GP ball head. I don't have measurements to prove it, but I think using the monopod together with me bracing my body against something solid, closely approaches the stability of a tripod. Shooting off the monopod may slow me down very slightly as I move for a shot but the dividends in flexibility easily compensate.

There is no such thing as a camera that is too stable. Hence, even sans monopod, you will rarely find me shooting without being braced somehow. Stabilization is a fine thing but I never count on it and I certainly don't consider it to be a tool that allows sloppy camera work, which seems to be a popular sentiment.
 
The YouTube photographers also use a tripod so they can talk to their video camera about the shot that they're in the process of taking, so they may not use one when you're not watching. Focus stacking would be difficult without a tripod, as would some other specific instances.
 
I own 2 tripods.

I cannot tell you the last time I used it.
Keeping them around for use in low light, static shots where I want to use Base ISO or long exposures.

Beyond that, I don't really have a use for them. I don't do focus stacking or have a YouTube channel (yet - thinking about it) so have not pulled them out for that.
I may just sell one of them or both...maybe keep a tripod head and attach it to a flash tripod if needed.
 
I have two tripods. Both Slik's, one bought way back when (1970's?), the other more recently for $5 off the Goodwill site.
The older I get the more I appreciate how much they can add to the sharpness of a picture. All my current cameras have IBIS and I rarely turn it off even when using a tripod.
Having an IR remote release has helped too vs the wired one I had for my Nikon's.
 
I have one tripod, a Sunpak one I bought second hand a good 8 or more years ago. It occasionally comes out, but only very rarely. Where I feel photography still benefits from a tripod is for landscapes. IBIS turned off, slow shutter speed, base ISO. A properly stabilized tripod shot will really increase the detail, sometimes more than you'd think. But if you aren't looking for that absolute fine detail, then IBIS or lens IS in a handheld body with a reasonable shutter speed for the lens and stabilization is quite sufficient. I'm going to try my hand at some astrophotography soon with the K1, and that certainly necessitates a tripod (unless you want to wedge the camera into the ground or something.
 
All my current cameras have IBIS and I rarely turn it off even when using a tripod.
I'm not sure this is old advice and not longer valid for a modern camera, but I was once told that it's best to turn IS off when using a tripod. As I recall, the theory went that if you have IS switched on when using a tripod, the camera or lens will go looking for movement which actually isn't there, but the actuation of the internal parts involved in that exercise will cause some slight camera shake, which wouldn't happen if IS was switched off (I hope that made sense, I remember being rather sceptical when I first saw it explained)

Like I say, it may be something which has been addressed in modern cameras. Might be worth checking the manual though (!)

-R
 
Good Evening,

I do rely on tripods for astrophotography, some landscapes, nightscapes, panoramas with my GigaPan Pro, and any work from my long Canon glass (=>500mm) combined with a Jobo gimbal head. I keep one in both of my vehicle's at all times, along with a monopod with an RRS tilt-head. IBIS/ILIS is great but there are those times...:)

Regards,

Edd
 
I'm not sure this is old advice and not longer valid for a modern camera, but I was once told that it's best to turn IS off when using a tripod. As I recall, the theory went that if you have IS switched on when using a tripod, the camera or lens will go looking for movement which actually isn't there, but the actuation of the internal parts involved in that exercise will cause some slight camera shake, which wouldn't happen if IS was switched off (I hope that made sense, I remember being rather sceptical when I first saw it explained)

Like I say, it may be something which has been addressed in modern cameras. Might be worth checking the manual though (!)

-R
My early conclusions from the Pentax K1 tell me IBIS needs to be off when on a tripod. I could see a difference.
 
I only use a tripod when doing LF with my Speed Graphic. I don't remember the last time I used either of the two cheap ones I own.

OTOH, if I ever do a long trip around the US doing landscape photography, I'll invest in a new high quality one so I can play with seriously long exposures and ND filters.
 
Likewise, I don't own a tripod nor like it. However a handful of landscape photographers who I know emphasize that tripods are the esssential gear for serious landscape photography, and are as important as the lighting gears for the portrait photography.
Shooting "time-lapse" clip requires a tripod, I can't figure it out how to achieve the shooting without it.
 
Back
Top