How important are tripods to picture fidelity on fast exposures?

[flyer]

The curtain in front of the sensor is always moving at the same speed when it is at 1/180sec. or faster. What does change is the gap between the first and second curtain. At 1/180sec, the second curtain start traveling when the first one just finishes it's run. Any faster, and the second curtain will start it's run before the first curtain has finished it's own run, thus giving less exposure to the sensor.

[falconeye]

oh, three answers at the same time I delete mine -- except:

However, this is of no concern in landscape photography as blur is local. It is a problem with some light sources, spinning wheels and such. But not here. And a tripod won't help anyway then.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Zewrak

It makes ALL the difference. If your strong enough to carry it around.

If carrying your tripod is a worry, consider spending extra for a carbon fiber one.

I went hiking today, and my new tripod (Benro C-158n6 with a Benro KS-0 ballhead) was in its bag strapped to the bottom of my pack. I was hoping I'd be able to remove the tripod from its bag by reaching behind me, but I couldn't even easily remove it by taking the backpack off. (If I had unstrapped it, it would have been easy of course.)

The end result is that for the rest of the hike, I didn't put my tripod back in the bag. I had my Leki trekking pole in one hand, and carried the Benro in the other. That thing is LIGHT! (Yet sturdy and reaches full height.)

The Slik Sprint series are also pretty light but sturdy, although they sacrifice height to obtain their lightness. I have a Sprint Mini and it's great for when I don't feel like carrying the Benro around (although after having had the Benro a week, I think that if I had gotten it before the Sprint, I would not have actually bought the Sprint and used the Benro for everything.)

[rburgoss]

Originally Posted by Old Timer 56

.....

On the other hand, camera shake (sans tripod) and/or mirror slap can cause blur in everything in the image, regardless of the weather.

Richard

That is exactly my point. You control the things that you can control. In this case, camera shake and mirror slap. If you can't control wind, then dont worry about it, just deal with it. No need to add "blurring conditions" when you can avoid them with tripod/mirror up.

For example, a windy landscape photo you can deliberately use slow shutter to enhance the "windy" mood, but remember that no matter how strong is the wind, there will be things that do not move (houses, rocks, etc.) that you still want tack sharp. OTOH, if everything looks blurry, that is what you get, a blurry picture.

RB

[jamonation]

What about ballhead versus 3 way mounts? Is there a preference for either? I'd imagine 3 way give more stability at the cost of time and effort (which doesn't sound like it should be much of a consideration for landscape anyways).

Is quick release a must for switching from landscape to say, macro too?

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by falconeye

>I guess that this is a no issue in "pro" landscape photography.

No, but it could be a consideration when deciding between hand holding and using a tripod.

>However, the rule of thumb (shutter speed = focal length or faster) comes from the age where depth of field was computed for a circle of confusion of 0.03mm. While this still holds true for print outs, it won't satisfy a 100% pixel peeper anymore.

The two really have different needs though. I find that the two can co-exist, but the files I print from look way different from what I look for if I'm pixel peeping

>The K20D, for instance, has a pixel size of 0.005mm and is 6 times smaller, corresponding to 2.5 stops.

>While this is quite well covered by shake reduction giving an extra 2-4 stops, I don't actually know how precisely it works. Maybe not precise enough to nail every pixel down.

>So, the save bet would be to have shutter speed = 5-10 x focal length or faster. If you can't achieve this, a tripod may actually lead to extra sharpness.

I hadn't realized it was that great a difference. but I can certainly believe it. No wonder I always see an improvement when using a tripod.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by jamonation

What about ballhead versus 3 way mounts? Is there a preference for either? I'd imagine 3 way give more stability at the cost of time and effort (which doesn't sound like it should be much of a consideration for landscape anyways).

Is quick release a must for switching from landscape to say, macro too?

I prefer 3 way heads, but this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement for the One True Way, or anything like that. I have a small ballhead on my monopod, which works fine, but for tripod work, I find them not as nice as a good pan/tilt head.
I wouldn't buy a particular head type by recommendation, though I'd certainly look at what was recommended, I'd want to put a camera on a few different heads and see what works for me.
You might prefer a ball head, you might like a 3 way, or you might find nothing less than a geared head will do.

Quick releases have their good points and bad. In their favour, they are fast to use, and relatively secure.
On the con side, they are not 100% secure, and having a camera fall off a tripod because you got careless mounting the plate is heartbreaking.
A badly built quick release can also allow the camera to move slightly, which can allow a bit of unexpected camera shake.

A good tripod will improve the technical quality of your pictures almost all of the time. A bad tripod can damage your camera by collapsing (I had a Manfrotto 055 collapse under my Pentax 6x7 while shooting a wedding), or not do their job by not damping camera shake, or by just being wobbly.

A good tripod is a good investment.

As an aside, some cameras also shake more than others. I had a Super Program that wouldn't settle down at 1/15 second until I had it on my Zone VI Standard wood tripod that weighs 15 pounds or so. It was OK on lighter tripods from 1/60th and faster, and 1/4 and slower, but those 3 speeds, it just rattled whatever I put it on.

[NicholasN]

I have a Velbon CX-300 tripod. However it does not carry the weight of a K20D very well especially with a decent size zoom lens. I have noticed that shutter slap makes almost all shots come out blurry when mounted on the tripod even with a remote switch.

Any suggestions for a heavy duty tripod which will keep the camera perfectly still and not suffer from shutter slap etc.....

[christinelandon]

As I've mentioned before, I've had very good experience with my Slik 813CF. NicholasN, I can also recommend using the wireless remote together with the mirror lock-up self-timer setting for eliminating vibration from mirror slap and manual shutter press.

[Zewrak]

Originally Posted by Entropy

If carrying your tripod is a worry, consider spending extra for a carbon fiber one.

I went hiking today, and my new tripod (Benro C-158n6 with a Benro KS-0 ballhead) was in its bag strapped to the bottom of my pack. I was hoping I'd be able to remove the tripod from its bag by reaching behind me, but I couldn't even easily remove it by taking the backpack off. (If I had unstrapped it, it would have been easy of course.)

Well I myself dont have any problems with carrying around my Manfrotto 055 XPROB with a 488RC4 head, which weighs in at 3,2kg. But I imagine some people will have trouble carrying that weight when fully packed with other hiking stuff. When I hike I go very lightweight, except for the tripod. Rarely, if ever, carry over 20kg total.

[Cideway]

Your lenses are only as sharp as the platform that you place it on.

The tripod also allows easier use of Graduated filters and polarisers.

And finally it allows you to take two identical images, not posible with hand holding.

[cardinal43]

Originally Posted by Zewrak

Well I myself dont have any problems with carrying around my Manfrotto 055 XPROB with a 488RC4 head, which weighs in at 3,2kg. But I imagine some people will have trouble carrying that weight when fully packed with other hiking stuff. When I hike I go very lightweight, except for the tripod. Rarely, if ever, carry over 20kg total.

I have almost the same set up as you, except I have the 486RC4 head. While it is a bit heavier than I would like, I didn't think I would use a tripod very much, so I didn't want to spend the $$$ for carbon fiber. If I was doing it over, I just might go for the carbon fiber.

[Lowell Goudge]

Originally Posted by Entropy

If carrying your tripod is a worry, consider spending extra for a carbon fiber one.

I went hiking today, and my new tripod (Benro C-158n6 with a Benro KS-0 ballhead) was in its bag strapped to the bottom of my pack. I was hoping I'd be able to remove the tripod from its bag by reaching behind me, but I couldn't even easily remove it by taking the backpack off. (If I had unstrapped it, it would have been easy of course.)

The end result is that for the rest of the hike, I didn't put my tripod back in the bag. I had my Leki trekking pole in one hand, and carried the Benro in the other. That thing is LIGHT! (Yet sturdy and reaches full height.)

The Slik Sprint series are also pretty light but sturdy, although they sacrifice height to obtain their lightness. I have a Sprint Mini and it's great for when I don't feel like carrying the Benro around (although after having had the Benro a week, I think that if I had gotten it before the Sprint, I would not have actually bought the Sprint and used the Benro for everything.)

the problem with carrying it is, if the tripod is in one hand and the walking stick in the other, where is your camera???

For hiking, I prefer a monopod (doubles as a walking stick) and my camera out. If I want to pack a tripod, it is because I intend to go from place to place(s) and sit for a time.

But back to the OP's question. how much sharper do your shots get, with a tripod, over using IS and / or high shutter speed. I have been thinking the same for a long time, because no matter how fast the shutter is, once you are past maximum sync speed, the shutter is not really moving faster, but the time over any particular area is reduced by reducing the width of the slit. This makes for a series of images that may not perfectly allign.

I find, for example that shots done with a flash are much sharper than ordinary hand held because the flash is fast enough to absolutely freeze the image.

If the object is stationary, a tripod must make for a sharper image. I might just try some shots to prove this,

[falconeye]

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

But back to the OP's question. how much sharper do your shots get, with a tripod, over using IS and / or high shutter speed. I have been thinking the same for a long time, because no matter how fast the shutter is, once you are past maximum sync speed, the shutter is not really moving faster, but the time over any particular area is reduced by reducing the width of the slit. This makes for a series of images that may not perfectly allign.

I find, for example that shots done with a flash are much sharper than ordinary hand held because the flash is fast enough to absolutely freeze the image.

Lowell, you raise some very interesting questions here. Me too, I had the impression that flash is sharper. I always thought it is due to fast shutter, optimum aperture and low ISO. You make me think now

Another question has been raised in my head by this thread:

If for landscape photography where carrying always is an issue, wouldn't the perfect solution with a DSLR be to shoot a burst with optimum shutter (5xfocal length)/ISO(100)/aperture(5.6-8)? Handheld and as many as required to catch enough light, e.g., 20 or so?

Solutions like Photo Acute are pretty capable in aligning and superimposing such bursts, even yielding effective resolutions higher than the sensor's.

So, wouldn't shooting of bursts be a better solution than carrying a tripod? (if not too windy so trees are not shaking)

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by falconeye

So, wouldn't shooting of bursts be a better solution than carrying a tripod? (if not too windy so trees are not shaking)

For myself, I don't think so, but I tend to trust getting it right with the hardware over fixing it afterwards with software.
What I see wrong with this theory is that you are still going to be dealing with camera shake, but now it will be over many exposures rather than just one exposure.
Also, if anything is moving (trees in the wind, etc, that movement will still register by having the branches at different positions in subsequent exposures. They will be just as blurry as if a single long exposure was used.
I understand the urge to not carry a tripod, but some of this stuff is work, and that includes carrying the equipment needed to get good pictures. It seems a shame to spend a pile of money on a camera with the highest resolution sensor on the market, then spend another pile of money on the best lenses available to take advantage of all that sensor resolution, and then blow it all and coming home with blurry pictures because you were to lazy to carry a tripod.