Is using a tripod for landscapes a thing of the past?

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

For me, landscapes are easier to shoot with a tripod. A serious landscaper (I'm not one!) Sometime has to wait for just the right conjunction of sunlight, clouds, moving features like cattle or whatever else. Doing that with the camera held up to your eye ain't fun.

Nothing to do with IQ.

Of course there will be occasions in bright sunlight where the shutter speed can be so high that a tripod is unnecessary.

But I think with landscapes the lowest ISO is preferable.

And then if one is using ND filters and at smaller apertures a tripod can almost be mandatory, even in good light.

Using a tripod also makes it much easier to contemplate setting up a shot.

https://500px.com/transact3133

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.
What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

Agree for those systems with IBIS, let alone the combination of IBIS-OIS, tripods are increasingly unnecessary. I regularly shoot down to 1 second with the Oly EM1 with sharp results, and the EM1.2 would push this much further. However, for long exposures tripod is clearly a must, and yes I like the small light ones and even the gorillapod I find great.

Hi, Pepyn-- For me, it depends on the conditions. For example I like to shoot early and late in the day, so a tripod lets me use low ISO and get the shot. It also depends on whether you plan to make large prints, which will show up differences in detail between handheld and tripod shots. I saved weight on my daypack by switching from full frame to a smaller mirrorless camera, partly so I could keep the tripod.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

Click to expand...

Not superb enough for good landscape work though. Nothing beats base ISO for getting the most from your sensor.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

I still need one quite often. I can't imagine not using one in landscape. If you're looking for that perfect lightning, you're going to need either high ISO (more grain, more noise) or a slow shutter speed. Landscape with more grain and noise - that would be an interesting trend.

Pepyn said:

Pepyn said:

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

Agree for those systems with IBIS, let alone the combination of IBIS-OIS, tripods are increasingly unnecessary. I regularly shoot down to 1 second with the Oly EM1 with sharp results, and the EM1.2 would push this much further. However, for long exposures tripod is clearly a must, and yes I like the small light ones and even the gorillapod I find great.

Click to expand...

Can you show us one of those 1 second shots? I'm very skeptical of this.

Especially at night.

Regards,

Sol

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

I think some of your summary only pertains to your A7R II with its GOAT combination of IBIS, large sensor, superb high-ISO images, and f/2.8 or faster landscape lenses.

Maybe you are asking if tripods will be a thing of the future past, because in the future, more cameras will have the capability of yours.

But my usual landscape camera right now is my Sigma dp0. It's a current model. No IS at all. Terrible IQ above base ISO of 100. f/4 lens. So a tripod is very much a thing of the present in many instances.

stevo23 said:

Can you show us one of those 1 second shots? I'm very skeptical of this.

Click to expand...

Those are not mine. I debating between getting the EM1.2 and the X-PRO2. I finally decided on the X-PRO2.

But here is some 5 seconds handheld photos

https://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2016/11/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-review.html

Let me answer this way:























I will say no more

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

--
PERSONAL WEBSITE
FOLLOW ME ON FACEBOOK

elfroggio said:

stevo23 said:

Can you show us one of those 1 second shots? I'm very skeptical of this.

Click to expand...

Those are not mine. I debating between getting the EM1.2 and the X-PRO2. I finally decided on the X-PRO2.

But here is some 5 seconds handheld photos

https://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2016/11/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-review.html

Click to expand...

All of the 5 second photos were braced. He stated that 1-2 seconds was the best he could do standing upright. He also said he had to abstain for coffee for 3 days before the shoot to do that.

Still, 1.2 sec @ 24mm (eq) is 5 stops, assuming the normal 1/FL rule. Pretty good. I could never do that with the 10-24, but I don't claim to have good hand-holding technique. Nor have I tried after 3 days of caffeine abstinence.

I find OIS or a tripod is necessary for non-blurred shots that are under a canopy of trees, or for sunrise/sunset. Sometimes even OIS is insufficient.

I can also get decent blur of a well-lit waterfall hand-held using OIS. Without OIS the ISO needs to be bumped, and even with the X-T2, I like to keep it at base ISO as much as possible for landscape. If the waterfall is in the shade I normally use a tripod, OIS or not.

So for me, a tripod is always with me (partially because I also do LE photography with 10+ stops of ND filter in front of the lens). As others have stated, even if OIS can get the shot at base ISO, there is a lot to be said about setting up the composition with care using a tripod, and then patiently waiting for the light to become optimum.

I'm in fact shopping now for a lighter tripod - have it down to an Induro CLT004, CLT103, or Feisol C-3332.

-
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

I have an X-E2 and X100T and I use both for landscapes. I use a tripod for my landscapes and architectural photos most of the time because neither camera has IBIS, none of my lenses have OIS, and I am older than dirt. So, I need all the help I can get. Using a tripod also slows down the process, making it easier for me to concentrate on my composition and exposure, plus try different filters before I take the final shot. I have two travel tripods and one of them is always in the back of my SUV.

I don't bother with tripod unless I'm doing long exposures. I would be curious if anyone can demonstrate tripod vs. no tripod at reasonable handheld speeds and without viewing 1:1. Perhaps something to try on my own to see what I'm missing.

afragisk said:

I don't bother with tripod unless I'm doing long exposures. I would be curious if anyone can demonstrate tripod vs. no tripod at reasonable handheld speeds and without viewing 1:1. Perhaps something to try on my own to see what I'm missing.

Click to expand...

Certainly your target output resolution will have a big impact on the math.

Personally, I prefer that all my "careful" landscape shots look good at 1:1. If yours is something different - like 4k - then yes, you can get away with slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISO.

TN Args said:

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

I think some of your summary only pertains to your A7R II with its GOAT combination of IBIS, large sensor, superb high-ISO images, and f/2.8 or faster landscape lenses.

Maybe you are asking if tripods will be a thing of the future past, because in the future, more cameras will have the capability of yours.

But my usual landscape camera right now is my Sigma dp0. It's a current model. No IS at all. Terrible IQ above base ISO of 100. f/4 lens. So a tripod is very much a thing of the present in many instances.

Click to expand...

XT2 also seems to be able to do it. That is with OIS zoom lenses though. OIS/IBIS seems to be a huge technical breakthrough for photography.

Greg.

Light Pilgrim said:

Let me answer this way:









I will say no more

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I am wondering how noticeable using a tripod is to the quality of your landscape shots.

Apart from long exposures do you notice a benefit from using a tripod? Obviously using a tripod comes at the cost of carrying around a relatively heavy and awkward piece of equipment and to some degree limits you to areas accessible by car.

I have a nice portable very small Sirui tripod I got after reading a review of tiny travel tripods here on DPR. I'll take that with me for a nightscape opportunity if I travel.

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Greg.

Click to expand...

--
PERSONAL WEBSITE
FOLLOW ME ON FACEBOOK

Click to expand...

Beautiful photos!

But I did say not including long exposure photography.

Greg.

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I can't say I've noticed a difference tripod/no tripod in these days with OIS or IBIS and superb higher ISO performance allowing higher shutter speeds with little to no noise.

What have you found?

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with the statement that you can take landscape photos at higher ISO because of superb higher ISO performance. Noise is easily noticeable in even moderately higher ISO shots. Noise impacts resolution as does noise reduction. If one cares about the ultimate image quality in their landscape photos you can't use higher ISOs.

Hi Greg,

No - It's certainly true that sensor improvements allow better higher ISO, and one can take advantage of that more often than in the days of film, but no camera is better than base ISO and tripods are still indispensable. I know they're an extra thing to buy and carry, awkward in back packs, tie up a hand, etc, but they're so useful and add so much to landscape photography that I still always take one.

More often than not, landscapes are not shot at wide apertures. Stopping down is usually needed to gain both deeper DOF and/or IQ improvements. They are also often shot early or late in the day when the light is lower. Tripods allow you to shoot at lower ISOs in low light with lower shutter speeds and maintain small apertures for deeper DOF. They allow you to set up and wait for the right light, the right wave, the clouds to pass, etc. They allow the use of long shutter speeds for waterfalls and the use of very dense ND grads. They allow the use of TS lenses - you can just handhold a shifted lens but trying to hand hold a tilted lens with any accuracy is just about impossible.

Photographers love to claim how steady they are at 1/30, 1/60, 1/250, 1/FL, 1/2FL, 1/3FL or whatever, but tripods never actually lose side by side shoot outs. Scare yourself - mount a sheet of newspaper on a wall in good light and shoot it hands-off with a solid tripod. Then shoot again handheld at a range of speeds from say 1/15 up to 1/1000 and pixel peep at 200% to see how high you have to go to be as good.... Try it just standing with nothing to brace against at all. Try it again braced. It's very revealing.

Cheers, Rod