Tripods are useless?

I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Why would you want to do that?! Any movement from the camera would make it look terrible.

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Why would you want to do that?! Any movement from the camera would make it look terrible.

You are correct. Hence the tripod to stabilize it.

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Why would you want to do that?! Any movement from the camera would make it look terrible.

You are correct. Hence the tripod to stabilize it.

Just use a faster shutter speed. It's pretty obvious.

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Why would you want to do that?! Any movement from the camera would make it look terrible.

You are correct. Hence the tripod to stabilize it.

Just use a faster shutter speed. It's pretty obvious.

What if you want to blur things deliberately? Like the ocean or something to make it look like it's all glassy smooth, or a river or waterfall for that silky effect?

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

...that with digital tripods are becoming less and less needed. I do own a Manfrotto tripod which I use occasionally when I want to do some landscape photos or something, but honestly with good high ISO, image stabilizers and other widgets. I don't feel the need to use my tripod much at all.

Along with that? Apart from sports photographers, who really needs a monopod?

I think in the future no one will use a tripod or monopod because the cameras will have perfect image stabilization and auto mode will be good enough for everything.

Sure. Do a 5 minute exposure hand held. Good luck.

Just put the ISO number higher.

lol that won't help. Doing that makes your shutter speed faster. You want the exposure to be locked in at 5 minutes. It's impossible to do without a tripod.

Why would you want to do that?! Any movement from the camera would make it look terrible.

You are correct. Hence the tripod to stabilize it.

Just use a faster shutter speed. It's pretty obvious.

What if you want to blur things deliberately? Like the ocean or something to make it look like it's all glassy smooth, or a river or waterfall for that silky effect?

Then why would you worry about the cameras shake making everything blurry when you want everything too look blurry anyway? Also you can use image stabilization to make everything sharp because that's what it's there for. If you need help keeping you camera still you can lean against a wall or rest it on a rock or something. I still can't really think of a time where I couldn't take a shot hand held. I usually shoot landscapes at f/2.8 or faster so I can get enough shutter speed anyway. If I need to I'll shoot at 12,800 iso too.

Image stabilization isn't everything. I shoot sports and with a 300mm lens handheld gets pretty tiring during a 3 hour game hence the monopod. Besides the sharpness factor when shooting a fast moving sport like hockey. Shooting wide open means there is less room for error and upping the ISO introduces more noise and grain into the equation most of the time.

Rob pix4u2 wrote: Image stabilization isn't everything. I shoot sports and with a 300mm lens handheld gets pretty tiring during a 3 hour game hence the monopod. Besides the sharpness factor when shooting a fast moving sport like hockey. Shooting wide open means there is less room for error and upping the ISO introduces more noise and grain into the equation most of the time.

Yes exactly. Apart from sports there's no need for monopod. With these modern cameras even the highest ISO is still ok. I don't worry about that.

Then why would you worry about the cameras shake making everything blurry when you want everything too look blurry anyway? Also you can use image stabilization to make everything sharp because that's what it's there for.

Mostly true for snapshots (a simple record of what the scene looked like). But very wrong for interpretive photography (artsy). The time exposure is not for the purpose of making everything blurry, only for making the moving elements within the scene blurry. While the stationary parts of the scene stay completely sharp. Also, IS is not miraculous. It averages out the scene movement. Where different parts of the scene are moving in different ways, then some of the scene will still be blurry, even with IS. BTW, if your camera always gives great results at f/2.8 and ISO 12000 then it really spanks my Canon EOS 50D (which does have IS, at least with some lenses).

Kelly Cook

The 50D is pretty old now. I think you should buy a 5D mark III.

You should sell your tripod. They DO suck. I use one whenever I have the chance to set it up, and I carry one where ever I go.... however I'm stuck in the past. You don't need it if you're okay with limited photography....
Wish we could do stuff like this hand held......

Lightpuller wrote: I was wondering how many of you actually use your tripods? I read here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

This is one of the articles that is commonly cited when people are going on about Ken Rockwell being a goof.

If you don't need or want to use a tripod then don't. You are correct, with today's excellent high ISO quality it is very possible to hand hold in low light, or to use very high shutter speeds in bright light. I definitely shoot hand held in many situations where I would have brought out the tripod in the past. A tripod is a simple tool: it holds a camera. Simple tools rarely become obsolete. Most photographers don't use tripods most of the time, but that's been true for over 50 years now.

In my own work I can usually see a sharpness difference between hand held shots, even at fast shutter speeds, and shots taken using a tripod, MLU, and cable release. Particularly with longer, larger lenses. People can't tell the difference between my 20"x30" prints from my 20D and my 5DII. They ask me what lens I used. I used all my lenses. The tripod is the secret. If I know I want a large, maximum sharply detailed print, like for my landscape photography, I try to use a tripod, because for me it tends to increase image quality somewhat. I can do very well without it, but if it's reasonable to carry and use I know it adds a bit.

When I shot film I used my tripod at every wedding. Now I only use it to hold my light (it's more stable in wind than a light stand). In that situation mobility and speed is an advantage, and the tripod slows me down. When I go out to shoot landscapes I operate much in the same way I did when I was shooting 4x5 film. I carry the tripod, and since I'm carrying 1/4th the camera gear (compared to 4x5), it still seems like less to haul The tripod slows me down, but in this situation I find that to be an advantage. I like being able to walk away from the camera to look at the scene.