FLASH or TRIPOD, which comes first?

ok... sorry for the very dumb question... but i would like to know how many of you bought a tripod first before a flash?

I initially planned to purchase a flash (a nissin DI866) as my next purchase, but I am currently leaning on maybe buying the tripod first (either manfrotto 190xprob or giottos MTL9351B).

So far, in my 3 months with my 500D, i shot quite a lot of landscapes, and I feel like I am going towards that direction. But I keep reading suggestions like "Buy a flash first, it will improve your shots" and I also like to have a flash for indoor and night time shots, but i also want to have a tripod for long exposures and landscape shots.

so what do you guys suggest I do? Flash or Tripod first? sorry can't afford both, i can only buy 1 at a time.

I bought a tripod first, although it was due to the fact that I like to photograph wildlife and a sturdy tripod will be more handy than flash most of the time. If I shot people more often it probably would've been the other way around. As for your situation, I'd say go with the tripod, it will be much more handy for landscapes and serve you better as of now than a flash.

If you're heading in the direction of landscape shots more than indoors/people/strobed shots in general then buying a tripod first seems a logical step.

It used to be (in the film days) that I would recommend the tripod first. But with IS lenses, the reason for tripods is greatly reduced, since handholding speeds in combination with high ISO sensitivity allow shots to be made when not previously possible with film. Nevertheless there are circumstances where even IS and high ISO is insufficient to make a shot. At the same time, that statement holds true for flash...IS and high ISO is insufficient to make a shot, even when you have a tripod (due to subject motion). Which one comes first is really dependent now upon what the individual photographer wants to shoot! It is a bit like the debate of "tele lens first, or wide angle first?"...it depends upon what the photographer wants to shoot.

Wilt wrote in post #9599829
It used to be (in the film days) that I would recommend the tripod first. But with IS lenses, the reason for tripods is greatly reduced, since handholding speeds in combination with high ISO sensitivity allow shots to be made when not previously possible with film. Nevertheless there are circumstances where even IS and high ISO is insufficient to make a shot. At the same time, that statement holds true for flash...IS and high ISO is insufficient to make a shot, even when you have a tripod (due to subject motion). Which one comes first is really dependent now upon what the individual photographer wants to shoot! It is a bit like the debate of "tele lens first, or wide angle first?"...it depends upon what the photographer wants to shoot.

Hmm, I see your point. Although I think that you're discounting framing the photo and composition. It is easier to fine tune the composition on a tripod than it is hand held. Sure you could go wider and crop in PP, but then you're needlessly losing resolution. I've also run into situation where it was hard to get the shot handheld due to wanting a tight crop and a tripod solved the issue. Although I use a tripod for over 75% of my photographs, so my perspective will be coming from more of a tripod based photographer.

That_Fox wrote in post #9599864
Hmm, I see your point. Although I think that you're discounting framing the photo and composition. It is easier to fine tune the composition on a tripod than it is hand held. Sure you could go wider and crop in PP, but then you're needlessly losing resolution. I've also run into situation where it was hard to get the shot handheld due to wanting a tight crop and a tripod solved the issue. Although I use a tripod for over 75% of my photographs, so my perspective will be coming from more of a tripod based photographer.

Yes, and tripods also make possible meaningful A vs. B comparison shots, which all too many photographers make two very disimilar shots and try to 'compare' the very different result! But I think that, practically speaking, most photographers neither tightly compose (I inherently do not see precision desired when photographers will shoot 25k exposures per year, hoping for one of two good shots!) nor try to do true comparisons. Which brings most back to the "What do you want to shoot?" question.

Wilt wrote in post #9599829
Which one comes first is really dependent now upon what the individual photographer wants to shoot! It is a bit like the debate of "tele lens first, or wide angle first?"...it depends upon what the photographer wants to shoot.

ok, i got your point... and i'm looking at the tokina 11-16mm for my next lens purchase also for wide angle and low light shooting in 1 lens. i have been pretty disappointed with my night shots / indoor shots largely due to my slow lens collection and not having a flash too.

i am asking this question because i haven't seen any post (pardon me if there are) that suggested to a newbie to buy a tripod first instead of a flash.

Digital photographers seem to be much more reluctant to adopt tripods, flash, and light meters, compared to film photographers. The high ISO performance diminishes the absolute need for flash and for tripods. The IS lens diminishes the absolute need for tripods. Histograms and post processing corrections diminish the reliance upon a photo lab to 'correct' errors of exposure. For those reasons you see much less advocates esposing newbies buy those once-critical accessories. It doesn't help that photographers with tripods are now viewed as 'pros' even when they are not, and tripod usage brings the need for permits, when they are allowed to be used, and you are'nt being run off as a potential terrorist!

tripod for landscape, flash for portraits. Go for a tripod first!

i might go for tripod and an ND8 then... thank you all