Digital Killed My Tripod - Ken Rockwell

[ChrisMc73]

Seriously...?

If you love your tripod then don't let me poop in your ice cream; but if you're carrying it around to use with your Canon or Nikon DSLR because someone else told you it made sharper pictures, think again. I make more and better pictures when I'm not weighed down.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

[Todd Lambert]

Hmmmm....

[Saint728]

Might be true if you can hold your camera still at 1/4 to 1/10 second? I can't and I've tried, but it might be a difference in camera weight as well? My camera body weighs a little more then twice as his camera so that might be why I can't do it?

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

[sheawyatt]

Old news, typical Rockwell.

As soon as Kenny boy informs me of a way that "digital" will let me take >30 sec exposures handheld while retaining critical sharpness, I will start to believe what he writes on his site. I also find a tripod is an integral part of the image making process when it comes to tweaking compositions, bracketing, using GND filters, and long lenses at low light levels.

[Todd Lambert]

While he might be right, I think it's bad advice to give. Not one photo has ever been ruined because of a tripod, yet 80% of bad photos could have been improved by using one.

If you're not being creative with the positioning of your tripod, then that is a personal issue, not an equipment one or if your tripod won't let you get low enough, then you just need to get a better tripod.

[sheawyatt]

^^ exactly. Is there a way to ban Rockwell from the Internets?

[SheRidesABeemer]

guess he's not doing much at night...

[ChrisMc73]

His opinion

"Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower."

[Karl Johnston]

I think the advice is great. Just think of the 10k people viewing the site daily. And they wonder why they can't get good pictures.

So they go to a pro photographer to see where they're going wrong, by following ken's advice.....

Ken's on our side, let him do his thing.

[hawkeye60]

Yawn...

[ChrisMc73]

I think the advice is great. Just think of the 10k people viewing the site daily. And they wonder why they can't get good pictures.

So they go to a pro photographer to see where they're going wrong, by following ken's advice.....

Ken's on our side, let him do his thing.

Sad thing one of them is my friend who keeps listening to him and sending me links to his crap...

[Roy Mathers]

This looks like it might be another long Rockwell-bashing thread!:D

[Sean]

I am starting to see Ken as more than meets the eye. He's a smart business man, and shrewd advertiser. I am 100% serious. I mean even if people are shocked, they still drive business to him.

Kudos to him.

[Wilt]

OK, Rockwell might be wrong a lot. And he might be overly stating the point and forgetting about slow shutter speeds. I have a long history with film and have been a tripod user for a very long time. I tried to convince some people on POTN about the benefits of tripods even over IS, and I have to admit that I have not yet been able to prove the point I made -- to myself!

I have run tests with handheld, handheld with IS, tripod (no IS) and compared the result, and I have to admit that I cannot yet make a clear case for a tripod -- a mere two years after spending $500 to upgrade to a lighter Gitzo! And I have done tests about 4 times so far. I have to keep trying to justify it to myself, in case my wife asks me "did you really need to...?" The last test was with 70-200 f/4L IS hand held at a speed NOT following the 1/(FL*1.6) rule that is appropriate to my APS-C camera. I need to now test at 1/40 (+3EV from the rule) to see if that is sufficiently slow to make a tripod necessary at 200mm over IS alone.

For tests on POTN that I do, the tripod is indispensible. But for curing the shakes, digital SLR and lenses with IS have a lot going for them! ISO 1600 or higher is a whole lot better than the ISO 400 films I used to have to try to use in low light. Tripods used to justify themselves, now I have to try!

[Todd Lambert]

Yeah, he's the Paul Thurrott of the camera world.

[Jon]

I wouldn't believe him if he claimed the sun rises in the east unless corroborated by independent and reputable witnesses.

[ChrisMc73]

I didn't start the thread to bash, but I just didn't think what he was saying was all correct, and wanted opinions. We all have ours. I just have not usually agreed with his.

[S.Horton]

Every time we post about him, he wins another small battle in the SEO rankings.....

[sheawyatt]

^^ true.

Nice new avatar and title by the way. That thread in the Lounge sure produced some good ones.

[les_au]

hmm interesting reading, i think he has a couple of points but i am not all that good at holding a camera still for 10 second shots

[ed rader]

Every time we post about him, he wins another small battle in the SEO rankings.....


that's right.

there is usually at least a shred of truth in much of what rockwell says and then he takes it a step farther and pushes a few buttons and has thus become an internet legend for the photography community.


the man is a genius i tell you...he lives in your head without paying any rent :D.

ed rader

[ben_r_]

How this guy got so popular I will never understand...

[SMP_Homer]

all his examples are at 12mm and 24mm
anyone can handhold at those speeds shooting that wide!

for everything else, the tripod is still king!

[cosworth]

Manfrotto. Italian. Mob.

You've been warned Kenny.

[dliveleyphotography]

I'll take low grain pics at night from my tripod at iso 100-400 instead of grainy pics handheld at iso 1400-3200 any day.

[n1as]

Uh, guys, go check that link again. He said much more than what you're bashing him for. He specifically said

"Also hang on to your pod if you don't have IS or VR on your telephoto yet, and for very long time exposures."

and later

"Today's digital SLRs' have spectacular quality at high ISOs, if you're in marginal light. Shoot at ISO 400, 800 and 1,600 on a DSLR and the results are as good as slow film used to be".

If you're going to bash him, the least you could do is to quote him correctly & completely, not taking his often inflammatory remarks out of context.

It was Rockwell's comments that led me to Canon. He recommended Canon for those who shoot sports.

[tgara]

How this guy got so popular I will never understand...

Well, he's got a website with a lot of photography articles on it. It is a resource a lot of people use, and his name gets around. There have always been marketers like this. Consider Scott Kelby, Gary Fong, Scott Bourne, Alex Lindsay, as additional examples. While you may not agree with him or his approach, for me, I'm interested in learning about how other photographers approach problems and issues. I'll incorporate his techniques into my own if they work for me.

[scot079]

I think the advice is great. Just think of the 10k people viewing the site daily. And they wonder why they can't get good pictures.

So they go to a pro photographer to see where they're going wrong, by following ken's advice.....

Ken's on our side, let him do his thing.

I'm w/ Karl on this. The more dbagsw/rebels out there, the more betterest the pros look, sorry Karl I put it blunt like. :-)

[Roy Mathers]

Uh, guys, go check that link again. He said much more than what you're bashing him for. He specifically said

"Also hang on to your pod if you don't have IS or VR on your telephoto yet, and for very long time exposures."

and later

"Today's digital SLRs' have spectacular quality at high ISOs, if you're in marginal light. Shoot at ISO 400, 800 and 1,600 on a DSLR and the results are as good as slow film used to be".

If you're going to bash him, the least you could do is to quote him correctly & completely, not taking his often inflammatory remarks out of context.

It was Rockwell's comments that led me to Canon. He recommended Canon for those who shoot sports.

Well, he's got a website with a lot of photography articles on it. It is a resource a lot of people use, and his name gets around. There have always been marketers like this. Consider Scott Kelby, Gary Fong, Scott Bourne, Alex Lindsay, as additional examples. While you may not agree with him or his approach, for me, I'm interested in learning about how other photographers approach problems and issues. I'll incorporate his techniques into my own if they work for me.


It's refreshing to see Ken Rockwell being defended for a change.

[Rick Anderson]

I don't know about everybody else here but I make better pictures when I am behind the camera rather than wasting time reading KR's sanctimonious drivel.

[Garry Gibson]

Someone asked why is he so popular I think I can give you an answer that might make some sense.

I am in a job in which I deal with technical people all day, university professors, independent research people etc.
One thing they are terrible about is making a positive and unequivocal opinion. There is an awful lot of "well you can do this or you could do that...."

You gotta give KR his dues whether you think he is right or wrong he is positive in his answer.
If you ask a question about a tripod there is no waffling. If you want to know if camera A is better than camera B he gives a point blank answer.

Now whether the advice is good... I'd say 50-50 but the point is if you're a beginner specially its unequivocal.

And if you think we bash him here go to Luminous Landscape..... yow

[S.Horton]

Every time we post about him, he wins another small battle in the SEO rankings.....

^^ true.

Nice new avatar and title by the way. That thread in the Lounge sure produced some good ones.

I've got even LESS street cred now.

BTW, Ken Rockwell is, by definition, a success, because we ARE talking about him.

[Tsmith]

OK, Rockwell might be wrong a lot. And he might be overly stating the point and forgetting about slow shutter speeds. I have a long history with film and have been a tripod user for a very long time. I tried to convince some people on POTN about the benefits of tripods even over IS, and I have to admit that I have not yet been able to prove the point I made -- to myself!

I have run tests with handheld, handheld with IS, tripod (no IS) and compared the result, and I have to admit that I cannot yet make a clear case for a tripod -- a mere two years after spending $500 to upgrade to a lighter Gitzo! And I have done tests about 4 times so far. I have to keep trying to justify it to myself, in case my wife asks me "did you really need to...?" The last test was with 70-200 f/4L IS hand held at a speed NOT following the 1/(FL*1.6) rule that is appropriate to my APS-C camera. I need to now test at 1/40 (+3EV from the rule) to see if that is sufficiently slow to make a tripod necessary at 200mm over IS alone.

For tests on POTN that I do, the tripod is indispensible. But for curing the shakes, digital SLR and lenses with IS have a lot going for them! ISO 1600 or higher is a whole lot better than the ISO 400 films I used to have to try to use in low light. Tripods used to justify themselves, now I have to try!

Well said Wilt. When on hiking trips I often find myself not using my tripod. It gets toted strapped to the backpack but most times its just to time consuming to set up while on the trails. If I can generally keep the shutter speed at 1/30 second + or 1/5 second with an IS lens shots are usually very sharp. I do use mine at times on these trips but often not. Technique is the key, while paying attention to your composition and exposure settings. Any tilted out level framing can be easily corrected in Post Processing.

Oh and about Ken, you guys keep reading his stuff and posting links to his site. So Ken is accomplishing exactly what is trying to. Not dumb at all it that respect.

[SOT]

Anybody got any popcon...this thing is really starting to take off.

[The Moose]

3.) Diffraction becomes more significant with smaller format sensors, making smaller apertures like f/16 off limits because diffraction makes images visibly softer with today's high-resolution cameras. Compact point-and-shoot cameras have much smaller sensors, and have no apertures smaller than f/8 for exactly this reason.

Try it yourself. Make a shot from your 'pod at f/22. Then pick up your tool in your own bare hands and make some shots at f/8 or wider. Look for yourself. It's obvious.

f/8 is generally better to use than f/22 and the tripod has nothing to do with that, as he's just noted. I don't like Ken Rockwell because all he does is contradict himself.

[YankeeMom]

I never use tripods. They are a hassle and not worth it (for what I want to shoot.) He does show examples of night photos (only 200 ISO) in that article that he took without one.

[rabidcow]

It's all in what you shoot and the environment in which you shoot.

I do not lug around a tripod most of the time, but there are times I NEED one.

Windy days photographing sports teams is a great example.

Crossing the stage photographing the grip and grin, I cannot handhold for 300+ students, I need a tripod.

Sports League days, 250 or so teams, I am using a tripod, I am not hand holding all day, not to mention the wind factor again.

[ChrisMc73]

What about Macro photography do tripods come in handy with it?

[Saint728]

What about Macro photography do tripods come in handy with it?

They most definitely you do. Especially if your doing really close up stuff.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

[ChrisMc73]

They most definitely you do. Especially if your doing really close up stuff.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

I didn't read his article entirely through, but I don't know if he mentioned that, and in my case, I'm wanting to do lots of macro, so a tripod is a good investment for me.

[Jon]

Yeah, well that's just it. He makes a broad sweeping generalization to lure people in, and then it gets nibbled away at by all the exceptions.

[fotoworx]

There seems to be a lot of negativity directed always at Ken Rockwell.

Is it deserved?

[Jon]

Depends. How do you feel about misinformation as a teaching tool?

[ChrisMc73]

There seems to be a lot of negativity directed always at Ken Rockwell.

Is it deserved?

Sure, if that many people don't agree with his opinion, its deserved. In my opinion.

[fotoworx]

Depends. How do you feel about misinformation as a teaching tool?


I'm new to the world of DSLR. So your advice is to keep away from his website?

[imahawki]

I mean, he's trying to be inflammatory, right?

Hang onto your tripod if you're shooting a real camera like a Hasselblad, Gandolfi, Linhof, Silvestri, Horseman, Tachihara, Gilde, Seitz, Sinar or even a Wisner, Wista or Mamiya, but toss it if you're shooting a popular digital SLR.

Plus, he immediately goes on to say don't throw it away for non IS lenses and long exposures. OK so since everyone fits into that category for the most part he's not saying throw away your tripod at all.

[jcothron]

In my opinion, anyone that is even remotely serious about photography will soon learn the advantages/need of using a tripod whether they read his site or not. He's pushing a lot of people's buttons...and apparently it is working to a large extent.

[Jon]

Yep. Pretty much. Unless you view it as stand-up comedy.

[Jon]

Yeah, well that's just it. He makes a broad sweeping generalization to lure people in, and then it gets nibbled away at by all the exceptions.

I mean, he's trying to be inflammatory, right?


Plus, he immediately goes on to say don't throw it away for non IS lenses and long exposures. OK so since everyone fits into that category for the most part he's not saying throw away your tripod at all.Yep. And that's why (as I pointed out above) he's viewed with such disdain.

[ed rader]

I'm new to the world of DSLR. So your advice is to keep away from his website?

i wouldn't follow KR blindly and that's what you'll be doing if you don't know any better. there's truth in almost everything he says but he tends to take things to extremes.

like someone else said at least he's pithy.....and i'm not saying that because i have a lisp ;).

ed rader

[ChrisMc73]

I'm new to the world of DSLR. So your advice is to keep away from his website?

He's just ONE guy with ONE web site, and ONE opinion. Your best bet is to get multiple opinions and information from sites like this one and good people on here who are well experienced in the DSLR world, other sites such as www.dpreview etc are good also.

You can read his stuff, but don't consider him THE BIBLE. Thats what I've done and I'm new to DSLRs as well. This site here, with all the great advice is a warm welcome to me. I can ask questions and not get treated like I'm a total noob, they give really good answers and help here.

[RandyMN]

You can read his stuff, but don't consider him THE BIBLE.

The Bible is something to be read and accepted by faith since no scientific argument is given...

Kenny is something to be looked at the same way you see the Gilbert cartoon in the Sunday paper.

Entertaining, sarcastic, but not fact or even based on fact.

Some points I do agree with while others are either insulting or comical.

[fotoworx]

This site here, with all the great advice is a warm welcome to me. I can ask questions and not get treated like I'm a total noob, they give really good answers and help here.


I heartily agree.

[slitherjef]

Oh no he didnt....
Guess I should send my 055xprob back to B&H for a refund now :rolleyes:

[Roy Mathers]

A Ken Rockwell thread (and there are many) is always good fun!