Is a tripod a "MUST" for night photography??

[Kit]

U claimed that its impossible to use a shutter speed of 1/2s handheld and capture photos that are usable. And since you wanted to see a picture taken using 1/2s, so i took one to show u that 1/2s pics with sensor IS is still sharp, unlike what u claimed

And obviously, u hv no idea and do not even understand how sensor IS performs, and thought that using sensor IS is as good as not using sensor IS as the results will be similar. So i hope u know now, the results of using sensor IS and not having IS is totally different.

So there you go. I know u probably feel sharp images is impossible at 1/2s due to ur personal experience. However do note that while u cant do take sharp pics at 1/2s, it doesnt mean its impossible.

That's what you considered sharp??? Geez..... come back later when you adopt higher standards.

Claiming that you can get acceptable 1/2 secs shots doesn't make you an expert in IS technology in any way. Contrary, that's actually a textbook example of misunderstanding it altogether.

 

[Kit]

ND filter??

ND filters cut down the amount of light hitting the sensor, thus reducing shutter speeds.

 

[Shen siung]

There is no short cut on taking good picture....some scene like water flow, light trails etc can't do without a steady stand....high ISO, large apeture is useless because you can't achive long exposure....sometime you may even need it in day time if you stop the light down with ND filters :lovegrin:

Agree.
I would say, any type of photography involve slow shutter speed will need a tripod. And usually, slow shutter spped is for night photography. But not always.

 

[Kit]

Heavily post-processed and noisy, exactly how I don't want my night scenery photos to turn out...
A tripod is still the essential tool to carry around for such situations.

Yes and if that is showing up at 630 x 430, no prize for guessing how it will look on an A4 print.

 

[TheChef]

I have tried to shoot without tripod...and all my pictures so blur and distorted...so a tripod is a must?? Night photography at smaller aperture and the shutter speed will be very slow..so hand held is impossible???

Need some advise thanks

TS, I read your quote again. Yes yes...without a doubt, you need a good tripod.

 

[rysouke]

ND filters cut down the amount of light hitting the sensor, thus reducing shutter speeds.

so does it mean i can use larger aperture and increase the shutter speed??

 

[Kit]

so does it mean i can use larger aperture and increase the shutter speed??

Why would you want to do that?

The whole idea of using ND filters is to reduce shutter speeds.

 

[rysouke]

Why would you want to do that?

The whole idea of using ND filters is to reduce shutter speeds.

hahha .. i think i get abit confused...so reducing shutter speed we can use smaller aperture for landscape ... am i right??

 

[Kit]

hahha .. i think i get abit confused...so reducing shutter speed we can use smaller aperture for landscape ... am i right??

Erm, nope. Don't mix it up with aperture. ND filters are used to reduce shutter speeds further to obain effects which you wouldn't be able to otherwise e.g. flowing water will appear to be a smooth, misty-like surface, moving foliage will appear blurry(in a good way), etc.

 

[IsenGrim]

hahha .. i think i get abit confused...so reducing shutter speed we can use smaller aperture for landscape ... am i right??

imagine you are at erm.. Angel falls. One of the most beautiful falls in the world. but you are there at NOON. where the sun is bright like the third person tagging by on your dream date.

but you want a flowy water~ so you meter. it reads (on extreme la hahhaa) 1/4000s f32 iso100. wah lao den how to get flowy water? your camera at its limit liao. thats where ND filter comes in. it acts like a darkened window. allowing less light to enter the camera. when less light enter, you need to lower shutter speed. maybe compounding a few ND filters (in this EXTREME case) can give you hopefully 1sec exposure f32 iso100. then you will have a nice flowy waterfall

of course you can open your aperture or up your ISO, but that defeats the purpose of using a ND filter because you specifically need to lower shutter speed to get flowy water.

There are also cases of special filters to take pictures of the sun too. works in the same way. (but in this case is so that you can even shoot it)

 

[rysouke]

oh...haha thank kit and isengrim....i got what you mean now....and this did learn something new...and tripod is a "MUST" have if i want a good result...

 

[Kit]

oh...haha thank kit and isengrim....i got what you mean now....and this did learn something new...and tripod is a "MUST" have if i want a good result...

Yes, not a fast lens, IS/VR, high ISOs.....

 

[NovJoe]

I've tried before without a tripod and the slowest I can go on my 18-200 IS lens is at iso400, f10, 0.3secs at 18mm with IS on. I did that for testing only as I still have my trusty tripod for night photography.

 

[stubertsg]

its MUST if you want quality pictures.
No, if you can accept high noise and blur pictures!

Also you can always use a flash!

 

[android17]

That's what you considered sharp??? Geez..... come back later when you adopt higher standards.

Claiming that you can get acceptable 1/2 secs shots doesn't make you an expert in IS technology in any way. Contrary, that's actually a textbook example of misunderstanding it altogether.

Firstly, not all pictures taken are used for prints. If its just to post in webpages, its certainly good enough.

That brings back to the same question, if u come across a scene that is very nice but the lighting conditions are not favourable and u don hv a tripod, do u go ahead and shoot it even if the results can't be as good as with a tripod, or do u just walk away?
If in situations that I don hv a tripod with me but am still able to take a photo which is as Sharp as the bottle pic, i'll accept that quality. Its better than not attempting to capture the shot.

IS might not help u get the sharpness u want, but it certainly helps in making the picture more usable in dire situations.

And i hv not claim I'm an expert of IS technology in anyway. However the minimum knowledge that I know is that it works as well as lens stabilizer. This is much better than some people who are totally clueless and claims that sensor stabilizer is useless.

 

[chalib]

You want the best, tripod is a must period

 

[Kit]

Firstly, not all pictures taken are used for prints. If its just to post in webpages, its certainly good enough.

That brings back to the same question, if u come across a scene that is very nice but the lighting conditions are not favourable and u don hv a tripod, do u go ahead and shoot it even if the results can't be as good as with a tripod, or do u just walk away? IS might not help u get the sharpness u want, but it certainly helps in making the picture more usable.

And i hv not claim I'm an expert of IS technology in anyway. However the minimum knowledge that I know is that it works as well as lens stabilizer. This is much better than some people who are totally clueless and claims that sensor stabilizer is useless.

Single out a sentence I made which suggests IS is useless. You haven't even got the slightest clue what IS can (and cannot do) so please, stop coming back here time and again embarrassing yourself. Your knowledge is not even "minimum" so to speak.

I said this before. If you are not going to capture a nice scene proper, it doesn't do any good no matter how good the scene is. If you really know your fundamentals, you'd know that good scenes are usually waited out and seldom chanced upon.

If you think you can be slack just because the photos you take are not going to get printed, its your perogative.

 

[RichardSeah]

Instead of using a tripod, I use a Fuji S5 Pro. Can shoot high ISO (1600 to 3200) without much noise and if there is a bit of noise I clean it up with some noise reduction software like Noise Ninja or Nik Dfine.

If I am lucky, can take acceptably sharp (but of course not super sharp) pixs with my lens set at 300 mm as slow as 1/25 second. If not lucky or kan cheong (excited) then even 1/125 seconds or faster still have camera shake. With VR lens, I get "lucky" more often and can a higher rate of sharp pictures.

To me, this is more practical than carrying a tripod every where and by the time you set it up, the situation that you want to take may be gone. Tripod works only for things that don't move, eg scenery and buildings, or when you WANT them to move, ie to capture movement.

I have an essay on night photography without tripod published in JPG Magazine.

I also take a lot of concert / performance pixs, all without tripod. You can view some at my photo essay on On Stage Photography and my JPG essays on Wayang Topeng and other Esplanade performances, and also on my website.

 

[egnaro]

Give an example of Night shot using Tripod.

I dun think this is impossible without tripod.

This shot was taken some time back with Olympus E3 with 12-60mm Lens.

 

[Kit]

Firstly, not all pictures taken are used for prints. If its just to post in webpages, its certainly good enough.

That brings back to the same question, if u come across a scene that is very nice but the lighting conditions are not favourable and u don hv a tripod, do u go ahead and shoot it even if the results can't be as good as with a tripod, or do u just walk away?
If in situations that I don hv a tripod with me but am still able to take a photo which is as Sharp as the bottle pic, i'll accept that quality. Its better than not attempting to capture the shot.

IS might not help u get the sharpness u want, but it certainly helps in making the picture more usable in dire situations.

And i hv not claim I'm an expert of IS technology in anyway. However the minimum knowledge that I know is that it works as well as lens stabilizer. This is much better than some people who are totally clueless and claims that sensor stabilizer is useless.

and come on, please show that photo of yours you took in a "dire" situation in which your beloved IS saved the day. No, not that green tea bottle again.....