Tripod for landscapes?

[juanpafer]

What am I missing here?
Everyone talks about a good tripod as a must for several types of photography. I got one a few months ago and have been very happy with the results in macro, night photography, etc.
Everyone recomends a tripod for landscapes also, and here is where I get confused. If you have decent light, f 8 or so, and 15 mm, you can easily obtain shutter speeds faster than 1/15 (following the 1/FL for the shutter speed). So why a tripod? Is it also advisable to use a remote trigger?
Thank you for looking!!

[mangaloreaviators]

How sharp are the pictures taken at 1/15 ?

Try doing Night Photography handheld and the pictures will tell you that they could have been better if there was a stable tripod.

Check this link where people have a invested good $$$ on Tripod.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=681408

I myself getting a Carbon Fible Tripod and Markins Q3T Bahhhead before investing in any L Glass.

[adam8080]

Do you want sharp pictures, or the sharpest?

[blackcap]

What am I missing here?
Everyone talks about a good tripod as a must for several types of photography. I got one a few months ago and have been very happy with the results in macro, night photography, etc.
Everyone recomends a tripod for landscapes also, and here is where I get confused. If you have decent light, f 8 or so, and 15 mm, you can easily obtain shutter speeds faster than 1/15 (following the 1/FL for the shutter speed). So why a tripod? Is it also advisable to use a remote trigger?
Thank you for looking!!

I generally use a tripod whenever I can, as it lets me set up and compose my shot while waiting for the right light. I also bracket my exposures so a tripod definitely eliminates problems with alignment if you need to blend shots. Sometimes though, you don't have time for a tripod, but as long as you get a fast enough shutter speed then that's fine.

[Picture North Carolina]

Welcome to POTN, Juan.

I once read an article that heldheld shots at 1/500 can still show camera movement. Very little, yes... but it can be there.

So the question is do you want to squeeze the last one or two or three percent of quality out of your shot or do you not?

Yes, use a remote trigger and use mirror lockup when appropriate.

Optimize everything you do to produce the best you can produce.

[juanpafer]

I think it all boils to "sharp vs. sharper". I had been using my tripod almost exclusively for when I needed speeds slower than 1/fl (for landscapes I mean... I use it a lot for night photography, HDR, macro, long telephoto shooting...), but I think I will use it more.
Thank you all for your responses.

[rdricks]

The tripod also helps in setup. I find when take the time to setup the tripod, I also take the time to really frame the photo. I'll play with various compositions and settings. It makes me think more. When I'm not using the tripod I tend to shoot and move on.

[WaltA]

I agree with Ryan - when I'm on a road trip and pull of at a spot I want to investigate, if I don't set up the tripod and take my time I just shoot and run.

As well, I can experiment with some bracketing quite easily once all is in place.

[Rankinia]

Tripods, mirror lock up and remote release are extremely important if you want the highest quality.

And in regards to your post I read a study that suggested for normal focal length lenses 1/13th was the speed effected by shutter slap the most.

It depends, if carrying a tripod and setting up for a shot ruins your style then they arent worth it. For me, Im a very technical shooter. Im happy waiting for light. Like high quality, use things like hyperfocal length etc. My brother hates them and uses them only for stacking of photos (again something Im not interested in unless I cannot get an exposure otherwise, which is rare enough that I forget how to merge photos).

Adam

[WillOPhotos]

I feel like im cheating if i dont use a tripod :lol: I want to make sure all my shots are as sharp as possible so I use a tripod all the time, most my shots are taken at shutterspeeds to slow for handheld too.

[tonydee]

I'm in between. I agree using a tripod slows you down and that can make you consider the composition more thoroughly, as well as make your photography more disciplined in general. It's not just camera shake involved: for example, having the camera steady so you can systematically expose to the right may have a more dramatic impact on your eventual photo quality. But, other times moving around with the camera snapping things off from different angles is a more productive use of time, and I feel I'm learning more from having more shots to compare later, and more chance to experiment.

So, perhaps some combination of the two practices is best for improving your photography in general.

Quality wise, if you really think this shot is going to be your all time favourite, then by all means do everything to get it as sharp as you can. But if, realistically, you know it's just the best of what's around, and maybe won't even be the best for the day, that doesn't mean it's not worth taking but it might not be worth spending extra time on.

I'm generally happy with the images I get from my 5D sans tripod. Many of my lenses have IS too, so it's often practical. I do generally consider it a better use of my time, a better self-education even, to take more shots and not chase that last 1, 2 or 3 percent of quality. I could put that time in at work and move from 5D to 5DmkII and there'd be no question the quality would be more than 3% better. Or, I can use the 645E (always with tripod) and best a mkII. Not worth getting hung up on it. In 20 years time we'll have 200MP cameras and the IQ of these shots won't seem so brilliant anyway, but I want to be a better photographer then.

Cheers, Tony

[Shadowblade]

Tripods are invaluable - not so much for sharpness, but for opening up opportunities for shooting that wouldn't otherwise exist:


Night-time shots
HDR (invaluable for high-contrast scenes with deep shadows and bright sunlight)
Long-exposure blurring of water
Panoramas (especially those with nearby elements)
Telephoto landscape shots


Not all landscape shots are taken with wide lenses in reasonable lighting!

[ianlti]

70-200mm is good for landscape?

[Shadowblade]

70-200mm is good for landscape?

Yes. So is 100-400.

Ever tried taking a detailed shot of an ice face with overhanging cornices with an UWA?

[rdricks]

My wife asked what my photography "style" was the other day. I replied telephoto landscapes. If I had to pick one lens for landscape it would be the 70-200. A large number of my shots are with the 100-400. The wide end of my range is 24, and I do not use it very often.

A lot of people get great shots with wide angle. A few get great shots with UWA. Some of us work with telephotos. Experiment. The beauty of digital is you do not have to worry about shooting extra shots. (8-10 rolls of film a day used to really add up;))

[tonydee]

I do tend to find that if I head out with only the 70-200, possibly with a 1.4x or 2x, I'll get almost everything I'd want to shoot. If I have the 24-105, I genuinely end up with less shots, having more trouble with unwanted elements, and less ability to pick out interesting details. A good scene has plenty of those: little scenes within the scene. But, all the wide angle shots can look the same: you've got to put in a lot more leg work to get the same photographic potential. The main time I've wanted UWA is shooting atop volcanic craters... very hard to get more than a slice across the middle without an ultra-wide.

Cheers, Tony