Railfan Technology > Tripods vs. Stabilized Lenses

Here's one:  I am wondering how stabilized lenses are favored over tripods, these days (or not).  Of course, longer exposures are an exception.  But any daytime shots surely don't need tripods.  Further, if one is concerned, shutter speed can always be increased when handheld in daylight.  In our particular interest areas however, I'm thinking that not using a tripod in daylight shots also gives an advantage of instantly moving in varying situations, as may be called for when the object is moving itself.  Most current DLSR's are handling noise reduction pretty well, these days.

Totally agree with everything you say. Bought a tripod in my early years in the mid-80s and rarely used it. Quickly found out I could do without it and don't know whatever happened to it. Definitely too cumbersome for a chase...

JG

Posted from Android

I never use a tripod for photography, only for video.

Shutter speed rarely below about 1/500 so no need. If it does drop below that, as you say the stabilisation is amazing these days, it's better for me to be able recompose, zoom out etc and take more/varied shots of the situation.

Night-time photography would be different obviously.

I use a monopod with unstableized lenses.  It's much less cumbersome than a tripod.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

norm1153 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's one:  I am wondering how stabilized lenses
> are favored over tripods, these days (or not).

I stopped wondering several years ago, despite a few "know-it-alls" lecturing about how one MUST use tripods to shoot videos. I posted a thread just now in the International Discussions where one can compare with and without. I prefer it without, where I can pan freely and document locations better.

If there's a chance I might use a video clip for time lapse, I put my camcorder on a "tripod" which is a Gorillapod (hand-sized tripod) I usually carry around. Otherwise, IS (Image Stabilization) technology has advanced enough that the choice to use it or not is no longer just about image quality.

Not all IS is equal. Thank goodness for real stores, I tried out different camcorders back in 2008 and found out some implementions of IS would still "shake" noticeably - I tried 4 different brands. What I found out contradicted "online reviews," including a "credible" article which probably was paid for by one of the manufacturers.

Hopefully, 13 years should have been enough time for all manufacturers to fix their problems with IS.

I've met some TO members who shoot exceptional videos, many carrying around heavy tripods. For just posting on TO, it might not matter, but for commercial-grade equipment and work, tripods still seem to do the job.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> norm1153 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's one:  I am wondering how stabilized
> lenses
> > are favored over tripods, these days (or not).
>
> I stopped wondering several years ago, despite a
> few "know-it-alls" lecturing about how one MUST
> use tripods to shoot videos. I posted a thread
> just now in the International Discussions where
> one can compare with and without. I prefer it
> without, where I can pan freely and document
> locations better.
>
> If there's a chance I might use a video clip for
> time lapse, I put my camcorder on a "tripod" which
> is a Gorillapod (hand-sized tripod) I usually
> carry around. Otherwise, IS (Image Stabilization)
> technology has advanced enough that the choice to
> use it or not is no longer just about image
> quality.
>
> Not all IS is equal. Thank goodness for real
> stores, I tried out different camcorders back in
> 2008 and found out some implementions of IS would
> still "shake" noticeably - I tried 4 different
> brands. What I found out contradicted "online
> reviews," including a "credible" article which
> probably was paid for by one of the
> manufacturers.
>
> Hopefully, 13 years should have been enough time
> for all manufacturers to fix their problems with
> IS.
>
> I've met some TO members who shoot exceptional
> videos, many carrying around heavy tripods. For
> just posting on TO, it might not matter, but for
> commercial-grade equipment and work, tripods still
> seem to do the job.

Yes, my bad.  I should have specified Photography only, not to include video where tripods are certainly needed.
My (big) mistake!

 

The most important reason to use a tripod in still photography is that it allows the photographer to better frame his subject matter within the confines of a meaningful scene.  Composition definitely makes a difference.

Following the nose of a locomotive with an autofocus zoom and stabilizer-equipped camera that produces a dozen sharp-but aesthetically boring images is pretty useless.  The human eye is incapable of looking to the four corners of a scene at the same time the subject matter is moving through its center.

Greg Stadter
Phoenix, AZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/21 19:14 by E25.

Personally I see no reason to use a tripod for modern digital still photography, aside from obvious exceptions like long-exposure night work.  Shutter speeds are high enough with any scene with a moving train that any hand movement won't matter at all.  IS is great tech, but if you're at 1/320th or more to stop moving equipment, then hand shake isn't going to be an issue except maybe on the very longest of lenses.

If you prefer to use a tripod, great, more power to you.  But personally I find them cumbersome and annoying.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/21 16:49 by NDHolmes.