This really boils down to how well the photographer plan and prepare prior to the shoot. I have never missed a shot because I had to set up the tripod.
Is a tripod a "MUST" for night photography??
- Thread starter rysouke
- Start date
- Status
This really boils down to how well the photographer plan and prepare prior to the shoot. I have never missed a shot because I had to set up the tripod.
Depends on what kind of photos you take. Obviously the type you take can be planned.
Not for me when when eg I shoot a Japanese / Korean rock band and the performers run/jump from one end of the stage to the other and I want to take a close up of the person's face rather than an overall wide-angle view of the entire stage. Not even when I shoot the much slower-moving Wayang Topeng.
I think he is saying that all of HIS scenes, or at least HIS NIGHT scenes, are planned. Are there no spontaneous / decisive / unplanned moments in night photography? :dunno:
Sounds like bullcrap to you because you are not at that level yet. Stay around longer and you might end up learning a thing or two provided you don't get too full of yourself. So where's the dire situation photo?
Like I said, my comments were made within the context of the thread. Of course I'm aware that some genre of photography where tripods don't apply.
The basic answer is yes when shutter speed drops to 1/20 sec and longer. It is not about day or night, just plain low shutter speed.
Even with IS, not everyone can handle 1/30sec and with shaky hands 1/40-1/50.
Full Frame camera can outdo other camera with increased shutter and iso6400 BUT there is always a limit.
Even with IS, not everyone can handle 1/30sec and with shaky hands 1/40-1/50.
Full Frame camera can outdo other camera with increased shutter and iso6400 BUT there is always a limit.
Whether tripod should be used or not depends on the situation.
Tripod cannot be used in this situation. I believed that VR saved the day for ths pic.
Should have used tripod for this shot so that the details of the "snowman" can stand out.
Tripod cannot be used in this situation. I believed that VR saved the day for ths pic.
Should have used tripod for this shot so that the details of the "snowman" can stand out.
ya...
use a ND filter in daytime to let less light into the len, so tat can use a slow shutter speed to capture movement...
I don wanna waste time convincing someone who cant even see things from a broader perspective.
Im pretty sure that alot of people are like me. If we have a tripod, of cos we will use it. What reason for us not to? However if we're out and dont happen to have a tripod around with us, and something interesting comes about, we will make the best use of our camera to take the best picture possible, rather than to turn away from it just because there isnt a tripod available.
For me, between taking a picture at 1/2s with IS vs not taking at all just because I don hv a tripod, i would choose to take the picture. And im sure alot of people in this situation will choose this option as well. So what if the result isnt razor sharp? Its the meaning behind the picture that counts, sharpness is secondary. As long as the pic looks clear enough, then its worth taking. Walking away from a shot just because of picture wont be at the highest possible sharpness, is laughable.
And for my test picture, its clear that having to use sensor IS (or lens IS) at 1/2s shutter speed, is much clearer than not using IS at all. Which brings us back to what was mentioned above. In a no tripod situation, and having to use 1/2s with IS, the picture sharpness is considered very much acceptable. This is so much better than not taking and then having no picture to show for that moment/scene.
Im pretty sure that alot of people are like me. If we have a tripod, of cos we will use it. What reason for us not to? However if we're out and dont happen to have a tripod around with us, and something interesting comes about, we will make the best use of our camera to take the best picture possible, rather than to turn away from it just because there isnt a tripod available.
For me, between taking a picture at 1/2s with IS vs not taking at all just because I don hv a tripod, i would choose to take the picture. And im sure alot of people in this situation will choose this option as well. So what if the result isnt razor sharp? Its the meaning behind the picture that counts, sharpness is secondary. As long as the pic looks clear enough, then its worth taking. Walking away from a shot just because of picture wont be at the highest possible sharpness, is laughable.
And for my test picture, its clear that having to use sensor IS (or lens IS) at 1/2s shutter speed, is much clearer than not using IS at all. Which brings us back to what was mentioned above. In a no tripod situation, and having to use 1/2s with IS, the picture sharpness is considered very much acceptable. This is so much better than not taking and then having no picture to show for that moment/scene.
Last edited:
When you can't back yourself up, you start finding justifications for your ignorance. From saying that its ok to shoot at 1/2 sec with IS to saying its actually to salvage a situation.
Walking away from a shot you are not prepared to take speaks discipline, dedication, care and responsibility..... quality control for you layman. A tripod gives you more than a sharp photo but I don't expect you to comprehend all that since you are still at infancy stage.
If you are happy with sub-standard stuff then by all means, go ahead. Stop coming back here spreading ill-informed information and embarrassing yourself. Many would agree with you?? Look around, do you see a sympathetic ear?
Just in case, the is within context of the thread.
Please read what Ive written way back in page 2.
And I donno where you get the idea that no one agrees with me.
I see people posting pics of handheld night shots in this threads, and saying its fine to take pics at night without tripod if there isnt one available at that point of time. The pictures posted by others here contains lots of noise, and some are not very sharp, but so what? They still take them because its worth taking, and there isnt another better choice other than handheld, which agrees with my idea that taking a picture at low shutter pic with decent sharpness is better than not taking at all. Infact, I dont see anyone following ur idea of "only use tripod to take night shots, else rather dont take" kind of philosophy.
Last edited:
Ahhh..... that's what I meant. You subscribe to a lower standard of quality control and am happy with it. That's the difference. If only you take pride in the photos you take.....
Page 2? What was that?
Showing meaningless half-baked photos of a green tea bottle or regurgitating wholesale from youTube? Which one?
See the pictures posted by others? Did everyone always use tripod for all night shots? Why did they take those pictures if they know the result wont be as sharp as it is possible with a tripod? Because they know its better to take a picture, even if it wont be of the best sharpness, than not to take at all.
And i subscribe to this "better to take, than not take" philosophy.
Last edited:
You might want to re-read(or check your sights as you suggested) what TS asked in the very first. She had asked specifically about the necessacity of a tripod because she was concerned about image quality, not alternatives to tripods. Get back on course.....
and for your sake, I hope that's going to be changed......
Woooo...... getting fiesty.....
Last edited:
Wah...still at it ar? 
For me, and YMMV, VR/IS is for enhancing handheld shots, not for replacing the tripod. And the intent of the photo must be met/delivered. It's perfectly ok for a blurry picture with plenty of noise, especially if converted to B&W, if that's what you wanna protray in your picture. However, camera shake has no place in picture that was supposed to be pin sharp.
Also, for the casual shot of a night scene just to remember the event/place by, I suppose a slightly blurry picture would be OK. The issue was perhaps confused by the discussion of IBIS s VR vs tripod which would be more relevant for photography as a more serious undertaking.
Peace
For me, and YMMV, VR/IS is for enhancing handheld shots, not for replacing the tripod. And the intent of the photo must be met/delivered. It's perfectly ok for a blurry picture with plenty of noise, especially if converted to B&W, if that's what you wanna protray in your picture. However, camera shake has no place in picture that was supposed to be pin sharp.
Also, for the casual shot of a night scene just to remember the event/place by, I suppose a slightly blurry picture would be OK. The issue was perhaps confused by the discussion of IBIS s VR vs tripod which would be more relevant for photography as a more serious undertaking.
Peace
- Status
Similar threads
