Using a sturdy Tripod

[RaysJ]

Hello, Iam just wondering what percentage of photographers use a tripod. I imagine everyone would love what is called a perfect photo. In handholding a camera, I’ve heard somewhere is no matter how still and steady one holds a camera, camera shake can be cause by just by a persons normal breathing. Thank goodness for Camera image stabilization. Anyway I have a good tripod and my problem is carrying it around on a trip. And I guess it’s nice to use knowing the camera is steady while taking a photo. Course a hand remote is necessary for the so called perfect photo. What are your thoughts.

It isn’t fundamentally necessary to carry a tripod with modern stabilisation and correction software, yes tripod images will potentially be better if you pixel peep the heck out of them on a high resolution sensor at the lower limit on shutter speed for handholding rules, but that just isn’t how you usually view images. Those the biggest gain for tripod usage is you keep the same framing if you need to do bracketing and do long exposure, but if you don’t intend to do either, I would not bother with it. You can fine tune as much handhold as tripod, the main difference is tripod by nature slow you down and forces you to take your time, you simply more likely to spend time on framing, but if you spend as much effort handholding it won’t make a difference.

It is really only worth carrying around if you know you have scenarios where it will give the best outcome.

one could potentially have a small less stable “table” version if one in doubt, but I honestly wouldn’t recommend carrying a full sized one unless it was a given I would use it

That depends what you are doing. I use one for long exposures. Yes l could handhold but l want sharp images not ICM type images. Also a camera and lens for 2 minutes is no fun.

Also if the light is low you don't need to bump the ISO right up.
On my IR camera the shutter speeds are often quite low, l always use a tripod, unless it is bright sunny day.

Then your fundamentally doing long exposure as I already stated.

Those it fall within what I wrote if;

1: Doing long exposure

2: Bracketing

I simply would not bother with 1-2 stop as that can largely be dealt with

When travelling, l don't use a tripod for street or for portrait images.

There are other reasons. Especially using evf. Also macro. Focus stacking. Even sports l use a tripod sometimes, especially cricket, so much easier than holding a camera all day, just sit back and use a remote.

lR is not long exposure, it is around 1/30 second.

 

[GeoffRG]

The shutter isn't the cause of detail destroying vibration. Total camera motion is, especially with a long focal length lens. VR, IS, OS, etc., helps mitigate the last the last iotas of that.

I guess nobody understood my question, which is my fault, because I worded it poorly.

I meant, do you still need a super-duper heavy-duty tripod when using the Z8 with a long lens, since it does not have a mechanical shutter (nor a mirror), two common source of vibration when shooting with a tripod.

I guess wind is still a factor... trying to understand what else is, though.

There are factors that are rarely considered where tripods are concerned. I have a Benbo (NOT Benro, different company)(Benbo tripods ) Classic Tripod No.2. It is large heavy and, unless clamped very tightly, will vibrate at the slightest provocation. Clamped tightly it's very sturdy and stable. I wouldn't carry it very far, it weighs around 4Kg and is around 1m long, collapsed.

A tripod is only as good as you make it, set on a solid foundation with the correct feet it will do what it's supposed to leave something loose and you might as well not bother. The sources of vibration are many, shutter and mirror movement being of some significance but stopping the lens down can be enough. You can't turn off the wind or people walking around (set up on a bridge and see what happens). In some situations you can do better hand held.

A super-duper heavy-duty tripod isn't immune to external factors but might react differently from a cheap, light weight one. It is also worth considering that a Z8 isn't very heavy, especially compared to a top end video camera. Feature film makers use much heavier tripods than most photographers.

The sharpness is affected by both the frequency of vibration and its amplitude, a tripod is good at keeping the amplitude down, as long as the surface it's on doesn't move, it won't do anything for internal vibration though, not that that is usually a problem.

 

[Malling]

The shutter isnt the cause of detail destroying vibration. Total camera motion is, especially with a long focal length lens.VR, IS, OS, etc., helps mitigate the last the last iotas of that.

I guess nobody understood my question, which is my fault, because I worded it poorly.

I meant, do you still need a super-duper heavy-duty tripod when using the Z8 with a long lens, since it does not have a mechanical shutter (nor a mirror), two common source of vibration when shooting with a tripod.

I guess wind is still a factor... trying to understand what else is, though.

I don't think the lack of a mechanical shutter would make much difference.

I think what you really mean is, can I add "opportunity to use a smaller lighter cheaper tripod and it's the equivalent of using a much heavier more expensive one with a different camera" to the list of justifications for why you should splash out on a Nikon Z8 - er... no.

My guess is most movement is caused by either wind, and/or movement of the ground (e.g. when on a beach and there are waves softening the sand), or being accidentally nudged by you (or the oscillations from the fact it has not fully settled after last moving, even if it looks still).

The weight of your gear has an impact as well, a Z8 would require a more stiff tripod than say A7CR the same goes with lenses, especially the longer ones.

so while correct environmental factors play a role, the tripod still needs to fit the gear your using. And a lighter set can just get away with a less tough tripod. This is especially true for the ball head most still use

That depends how windy it is. Lightweight tripods are not much use in windy conditions. The extra weight of the camera may actually help weight it down. I found carbon fibre better than Al, despite being lighter as there is less vibration.

To achieve the same measured stability you need a more stiff tripod and head the heavier and the bigger the gear, this is especially pronounced on lenses exceeding 200mm. We aren’t talking lightweight vs systematic here we are talking tripod within the same category, the heavier and bigger the more it requires in terms of stiffness and damping, a camera is not particularly effective at keeping tripods down you need a “sandbag” for that.



carbon is superior for damping

 

[Malling]

Hello, Iam just wondering what percentage of photographers use a tripod. I imagine everyone would love what is called a perfect photo. In handholding a camera, I’ve heard somewhere is no matter how still and steady one holds a camera, camera shake can be cause by just by a persons normal breathing. Thank goodness for Camera image stabilization. Anyway I have a good tripod and my problem is carrying it around on a trip. And I guess it’s nice to use knowing the camera is steady while taking a photo. Course a hand remote is necessary for the so called perfect photo. What are your thoughts.

It isn’t fundamentally necessary to carry a tripod with modern stabilisation and correction software, yes tripod images will potentially be better if you pixel peep the heck out of them on a high resolution sensor at the lower limit on shutter speed for handholding rules, but that just isn’t how you usually view images. Those the biggest gain for tripod usage is you keep the same framing if you need to do bracketing and do long exposure, but if you don’t intend to do either, I would not bother with it. You can fine tune as much handhold as tripod, the main difference is tripod by nature slow you down and forces you to take your time, you simply more likely to spend time on framing, but if you spend as much effort handholding it won’t make a difference.

It is really only worth carrying around if you know you have scenarios where it will give the best outcome.

one could potentially have a small less stable “table” version if one in doubt, but I honestly wouldn’t recommend carrying a full sized one unless it was a given I would use it

That depends what you are doing. I use one for long exposures. Yes l could handhold but l want sharp images not ICM type images. Also a camera and lens for 2 minutes is no fun.

Also if the light is low you don't need to bump the ISO right up.
On my IR camera the shutter speeds are often quite low, l always use a tripod, unless it is bright sunny day.

Then your fundamentally doing long exposure as I already stated.

Those it fall within what I wrote if;

1: Doing long exposure

2: Bracketing

I simply would not bother with 1-2 stop as that can largely be dealt with

When travelling, l don't use a tripod for street or for portrait images.

There are other reasons. Especially using evf. Also macro. Focus stacking. Even sports l use a tripod sometimes, especially cricket, so much easier than holding a camera all day, just sit back and use a remote.

lR is not long exposure, it is around 1/30 second.

Focus stacking is just an in body version of focus bracketing where you would stack in post.



sport is usually just a monopod to relieve you, many places you simply won’t have the privilege to actually be able to have a tripod…

 

[Ruby Rod]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

 

[RaysJ]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

Good point about balance, my Canon 70-200 was vastly improved by adding a lens mount. It was not so much the tripod but the strain on the ball head, also had sagging when tightening it up. With the lens mount it was well balanced, hardly any strain and no sag.

My Tamron 50-300 seems fine without a lens mount though. Not tested it in windy conditions yet.

 

[GeoffRG]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

Good point about balance, my Canon 70-200 was vastly improved by adding a lens mount. It was not so much the tripod but the strain on the ball head, also had sagging when tightening it up. With the lens mount it was well balanced, hardly any strain and no sag.

My Tamron 50-300 seems fine without a lens mount though. Not tested it in windy conditions yet.

For maximum stability the camera/lens combination would be supported directly above the centre of mass (centre of gravity). Most tripods support the camera/lens from below, the centre of mass may be above the mounting point, or not, which isn't ideal. The camera's tripod bush isn't at, or even near, the centre of mass with anything longer than a standard lens.

 

[RaysJ]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

Good point about balance, my Canon 70-200 was vastly improved by adding a lens mount. It was not so much the tripod but the strain on the ball head, also had sagging when tightening it up. With the lens mount it was well balanced, hardly any strain and no sag.

My Tamron 50-300 seems fine without a lens mount though. Not tested it in windy conditions yet.

For maximum stability the camera/lens combination would be supported directly above the centre of mass (centre of gravity). Most tripods support the camera/lens from below, the centre of mass may be above the mounting point, or not, which isn't ideal. The camera's tripod bush isn't at, or even near, the centre of mass with anything longer than a standard lens.

In theory it should but in practice most lenses don't have a mount unless they are longer FL. I don't have an issue with wide or mid range lenses, ie 20-70 and 24-105. The 70-200 is fixed and is quite long.



Many new lenses are light plastic.

 

[Malling]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

Good point about balance, my Canon 70-200 was vastly improved by adding a lens mount. It was not so much the tripod but the strain on the ball head, also had sagging when tightening it up. With the lens mount it was well balanced, hardly any strain and no sag.

My Tamron 50-300 seems fine without a lens mount though. Not tested it in windy conditions yet.

For maximum stability the camera/lens combination would be supported directly above the centre of mass (centre of gravity). Most tripods support the camera/lens from below, the centre of mass may be above the mounting point, or not, which isn't ideal. The camera's tripod bush isn't at, or even near, the centre of mass with anything longer than a standard lens.

It is never a center of anything, not even with a small lightweight lens, it is really only so for body and perhaps a pancake/cupcake lens. But it is too impractical and would make gear unnecessarily large if we really had to make every lens so when mounted at centre of mass… this is more the case it is good enough to not cause big enough issues.

It really first start being an issue beyond the 85mm range so we start seeing some have it.. but even then it is more the close enough is good enough

 

[GeoffRG]

I don't have a Z8 but these questions are hard to answer because they tend to be equipment specific. What I find is that if a camera/lens combo is mounted away from its center of balance, even a great tripod may not damp vibration quickly. Using a secondary plate to mount the camera/lens right at the balance point can let you get away with a lesser tripod. One should always check the settling time of a given combination. I use electronic shutter for almost everything and it should help at least somewhat.

Good point about balance, my Canon 70-200 was vastly improved by adding a lens mount. It was not so much the tripod but the strain on the ball head, also had sagging when tightening it up. With the lens mount it was well balanced, hardly any strain and no sag.

My Tamron 50-300 seems fine without a lens mount though. Not tested it in windy conditions yet.

For maximum stability the camera/lens combination would be supported directly above the centre of mass (centre of gravity). Most tripods support the camera/lens from below, the centre of mass may be above the mounting point, or not, which isn't ideal. The camera's tripod bush isn't at, or even near, the centre of mass with anything longer than a standard lens.

In theory it should but in practice most lenses don't have a mount unless they are longer FL. I don't have an issue with wide or mid range lenses, ie 20-70 and 24-105. The 70-200 is fixed and is quite long.

Many new lenses are light plastic.

Whilst the structure might be non-metal the optical elements are still glass and glass is heavy.

 

[RBFresno]

Nice tripod!

Eye-watering price

Yep..

I learned years ago, partly through per$onal experience, the pitfalls of skimping on the dollars when seeking good camera support

Years ago, Thom Hogan nicely outlined the potentially dollar wasting pitfalls that I and others sometimes make in search of good camera/lens support.

Though a bit outdated, it's still worth a read :

Thom Hogan's "Tripod 101" Advice

In my case, I started off decades ago struggling with a cheap, heavy tripod with no quick attach plates. Literally had to screw my camera directly onto the tripod.

So after reading Thom's article, I waited a few years and saved up for what I should have bought in the first place.

I was fortunate back then that RRS was located in San Luis Obispbo, close to my parent's home.

I was able to meet in person with the Joe and his RRS staff and got some good quality gear that I still use 15 years later.

The Ascend tripod that I purchased this year, is the first tripod that I have purchased since my initial RRS purchase 15 years ago.

As I mentioned above, I primarily got the Ascend for travel (It didn't exist back when I first bought my gear)

It worked out well.

Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859

 

[anotherMike]

The price of a top flight tripod and head is long forgotten over time.

I got my Gitzo 5 series and RRS BH-55 ballhead in 2006, and it's still going strong, and it's been through hell. It was in many ways my first "buy once, you're done" purchases.

 

[Malling]

You can fundamentally also get a tripod that you won’t really benefit from, there no objective reason to get the most rugged built model if you never use tripods in environment where such come in handy or don’t use long enough tele lenses that require more rigged ones. The fundamental criteria for tripods is still the same as for all other gear, that you actually will end up taking it with you, if the gear is to special or big and heavy that prevents you from using it, it would do you less good then the cheaper stuff that would be light enough for you to actually use it.
It is always better to go with the one you realistically end up using then owning the best one money can buy that just end up collecting dust on a shelf.
I seen way to many buying tripods never too use them because they were overthinking the stability aspect; instead of what they should have done purchasing a tripod small and light enough to actually be used. The biggest killer has always been weight/size.

most mirrorless don’t need the best ball heads, many of the better ones were build for heavy DSLR and lenses. I gladly admit the one I have now is a complete overkill for the gear I now use… I probably will get a cheaper one and replace it with.

 

[RBFresno]

The price of a top flight tripod and head is long forgotten over time.

I got my Gitzo 5 series and RRS BH-55 ballhead in 2006, and it's still going strong, and it's been through hell. It was in many ways my first "buy once, you're done" purchases.

Hi!

The BH-55 ballhead is also what I bought 15 years ago (along with a RRS tripod)

Works as well now as the day I got it. (I wish that I was in the same shape now as I was 15 years ago!)

(I think RRS didn't make tripods until after 2003, but I might be mistaken).

Best Regards,

RB

 

[RaysJ]

The price of a top flight tripod and head is long forgotten over time.

I got my Gitzo 5 series and RRS BH-55 ballhead in 2006, and it's still going strong, and it's been through hell. It was in many ways my first "buy once, you're done" purchases.

Gitzo are not perfect and l don't know any amateurs who use them. Just read one review on Gitzo and Benro, he had to have 2 legs replaced, on his Gitzo within 10 years, because of cf breakdown. He changed to Benro, which he found just as good but a lot cheaper.

l bought a Benro about 8 years, l got an demo one, half price. It has stood up well so far, plenty of use on beaches and in the sea. All my tripods have last many years, Manfrotto, Giotto and Benro. Manfrotto was Al, too heavy and not good enough damping.

When l bought the Benro, not many others had them, now they seem one of the most popular brands, in the UK.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Gitzo are not perfect and l don't know any amateurs who use them.

I know numerous UK amateurs who use Gitzo.

I have a mid price Benro Ball Head that failed after 4 years - and cannot be economically repaired.

Small user samples such as mine prove very little as regards overall durability.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[Ellis Vener]

I own four full size tripods

1. an Aluminum legged Gitzo Systematic 325 I purchased in 1981. This was my main tripod till about 2016 or ‘17
2. aaluminum legged Gitzo Systemstic 410C, purchased in 1984 when I purchased my first 4x5 monorail camera
3. a smaller Benro I’ve had since 2010. This was my first carbon fiber legged tripod. I got it for a travel project
4. a carbon legged ProMediaGear TR344. This one is roughly the same size when folded as the Gitzo 325 but fully extended is about10-12 inches taller when fully extended. It’s This can been my primary tripod since purchasing in the middle of the last decade.
   

would I go back to using either of the old Gitzos as my primary ‘pod? If I had to, yes. Would I enjoy it? No.

 

[anotherMike]

Valid points, but I'll say this:

• I've been in this game a very long time. I can't remember every tripod I've owned, although I remember the first two - a Davis and Sanford and a big heavy Aluminum Bogen when I was at RIT and shooting a lot of 4x5. Over the decades, I've seen more people make the "cheap tripod mistake" more than I've seen people over-buy the tripod, so while I see your point, I will strongly disagree with you based upon personal experience. And I fully include myself in that category: I stopped shooting for a while after college, but when I got back into it, I made the cheap tripod mistake, and went through a bunch. A friend of mine who was a published landscape photographer in that day kept harping on me getting a real tripod. I shot a lot of stuff in wind or on the coast at the time, and the cheap tripods weren't making it. Once I got the big Gitzo, I realized what he was talking about. Tripods matter. A lot of guys spend so much time arguing about how great their lens brand of choice is for sharpness, but then what and how they shoot never allow them to even get anywhere near that resolution capability in real life. I was reminded of an early lesson at RIT where we were taught how many things conspire to take resolution away from us in the shooting process, and brother, it's a list...
• With regards to brands:
  • Certainly today there are far more choices, and some of them likely good, that don't cost as much as the reference standards. In 2006, which is when I went serious, there was no Benro that I remember, RRS was just starting out, and everyone I knew personally who was a serious shooter shot on a Gitzo, so that's what I went with.
  • I've met a fair number of high end landscape shooters, including guys with coffee table books and a guy who runs three galleries and sells megabucks large prints and makes insane money on print sales, even in this digital-display era, and the funny thing is: ALL of them, without fail, shoot on either RRS or Gitzo. I knew a guy who shot Induro for a bit - one of the earlier Gitzo cheap alternatives, and hated it, and went back to Gitzo since they actually held up in the field. So I don't feel I made a bad choice given both what was available then and also what a lot of shooters are working with now.
  • But sure - as I age, and shoot less, it's quite possible that some day I might consider an alternate brand as well as something not quite as beefy as a 5 series gitzo for the exact reasons you mention - portability. Times change and we all get older. But right now, I'm good. That decision to not skimp in 2006 has been perhaps the one gear buying decision I've never regretted.

 

[anotherMike]

I know dozens of amateurs who use Gitzo. And RRS, and even some Benro. Lots of choices these days, which ultimately is a good thing.

 

[Ellis Vener]

Agreed. Choice is a good thing.

Forty-five years ago there were pretty much just three common choices: Gitzo, Manfrotto, and Tilt-All. For really big cameras there was Majestic (at least here in the ISA), and from Europe there were rumors of a brand called Foba which was part of the Sinar-Broncolor-Foba troika, and some large format photographers really liked large format landscape photography there were wooden tripods like Reis. I have no idea what local brands were available in Japan, China, or the rest of the world.

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio