Tripod - How much do you use a Tripod?

Tripod - How much do you use a Tripod?

  • Yes, over 50% of the time.

    Votes: 31 8.1%

  • Yes, less than 50% of the time.

    Votes: 222 58.3%

  • No, I use a monopod.

    Votes: 26 6.8%

  • No, I use a beanbag

    Votes: 5 1.3%

  • No, never.

    Votes: 107 28.1%
  • Total voters
    381
I voted for less than 50%. I have a lightweight Slik tripod but I only use it occasionally with my rangefinders, mainly when I know it will be low light or if I'm after a long exposure look.
Most of the time I shoot handheld and with the Leica that's down to 1/30 without need for extra support
 
I use my Gitzo to put on the couch at night, so the dog won't sleep there.

Oh, and I use it for detail shots of stuff I'm going to sell.

And I will use it to shoot my Horseman once it arrives.

My tripod is pretty multitasking!
 
I shoot a lot at night. Fast glass is good for some things, but when I want DoF, I've learned to embrace my mini manfrotto 3 piece tabletop tripod and leitz ballhead. It's much less a pain than a big tripod, but is more useful than a beanbag. That said, it has its weight limit with a heavy load and is probably happier when I don't use it with f/1.2 lenses.

I should learn to use it in the daytime. Might be helpful.

I have a monopod and it gets slightly less use than my full-size tripod -- and that's not much. The right tool is the tool you have with you.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The amount I use a tripod may now go back up, in order to get the maximum possible quality out of the M9. The images really are comparable with good slides.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Erwin Puts regularly reminds us that careful work is required to get the best out of ANY equipment. I use a tripod whenever possible.

Janice Dickinson (yes, that one, the 'Supermodel') describes in her autobiography how Avedon, Penn and Scavullo would carefully make a limited number of images while other photographers would shoot hundreds of shots (" . . . the French Mafia's Kamikaze approach . . .") with the hope that some would come out well enough to be published. Of course the Big 3 used solid support all the time and well practiced technique when shooting handheld.

Of course that's a particular kind of photography, but Puts seems to argue that the ultimate benefits of fine optics are lost in the absence of disciplined technique.

Nature photographer John Shaw addresses the subject in his book Closeups In Nature and provides visual examples, as excerpted here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RDy0zlRFFDsC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=tripod+comparison+%22john+shaw%22&source=bl&ots=50ChltNdlk&sig=hPXfJasKmSLbHeFu7QdCDGMCyz0&hl=en&ei=xE4uS7DNE4yklAfOuMGjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tripod&f=false

my two lux worth/ScottGee1
 
80% of my photography is candid portraiture and random street type shots. I got a tripod for the other 20% and it was a solid investment because now I'm shooting more stuff that requires a tripod, and I'm learning a lot more about photography.
 
Someone mentioned the "gun lobby"....

Someone mentioned the "gun lobby"....

So in keeping with that, let me add.. "You can have my tripod when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers".

Been using either a tripod or monopod for most of my shooting for years. Sometime in the 60's I read a very well written study on the advantages of tripods and it made a believer out of me.

I think there is a consideration for tripod use that has not been listed in this post. It's fairly obvious to me that my keeper rate over the years has been improved by using tripods/monopods.

The best consideration for supporting the camera is that while composing and focusing a shot, I can either spend part of my energy also concentrating on holding the camera steady or on the creation of the image. I personally think that's an important plus of using help to stabilize the camera.
 
I've been using a tripod quite a lot recently for nature and product shots. Several years ago I ditched a cheap Wolf Camera tripod, which was a pain in the neck, for a nice Manfrotto. I actually enjoy using it.
 
I almost never use tripod (or even monopod) when shooting with my RF.
But Medium Format SLR is a different story, it is almost a must.
I shoot both, so, what should my answer be?

Well, since we are in the RF realm, I dropped my use of MF and answered for my use of the RF system - "No, Never".
 
I barely use a tripod. Only for self portraits, occasional table top and studio work, long exposure night shots. Other than that I see no reason. It gets in the way more than helps most of the time. Even when I think I'd need one I'd rather leave it behind because it's a hassle to carry.
 
Stanton said:
I found "The Pod" to be a good portable compromise to avoid carrying a tripod when I really should.
Click to expand...

+1

I keep two upside down on the bottom of my non-padded camera go-bag so that when not in use they are still in use protecting my gear (somewhat). It's a great solution for not all but maybe 90% of the tripod shots you should ever need to take.
 
The beauty of the current market is that there are SOOOO many possibilities and nifty new tripod designs and materials that the choices are almost endless. My choice is a reasonably solid leg set with a ball head. Old Gitzo Reporter with a Bogen 484 (Q/R) ball is my setup.
 
IMHO, a tripod defeats most of the purposes of 35mm.
Of course I'm not talking sports photos or macro.
but landscape with a 35mm camera and a tripod??
Erwin Puts has a strange point here...
I would rather use only half of the potential of an ok MF lens, than squeeze the hell out of a top of the line 35mm lens.
And I have the feeling the MF will be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom