Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tripod necessity . . .
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:10 pm    Post subject: Tripod necessity . . . Reply with quote

I am one of those photographers that has always believed a tripod (or equivalent) needs to be part of a photographer's kit . . .
What started me on this has been visiting the new film photography site I poster a while ago, http://emulsive.org/
They had articles talking about what should be in a photography kit (had several version for different trips etc.). What made me scratch my head was the only mention about a tripod was not including it due to weight ?!?! Shocked
The rule I learned was that if you hand hold a camera with telephoto there is an easy way guess you limits. The rule was that you take the focal length of the lens - lets say 200mm - put a 1 in front of it as a fraction - 1/200. This tells you what should be the slowest speed you can hand hold = 1/250. Years ago this came up in a couple discussions when people were wondering why a picture had a blur.
Do you agree ?
I have no issue adding on the tripod's weight - Manfrotto's 190XDB isn't that bad, in my opinion. I think the ability to shoot in any light or spontaneously trying out an idea (ND filters to slow a waterfall until it turns into swirling mist, etc.) I guess if you didn't mind limiting yourself if there was no way to steady your camera then leaving the tripod behind isn't an issue . . . Rolling Eyes

Jim


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Manfrotto Carbon tripod with me for my work, rather light but quite sturdy.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Tripod necessity . . . Reply with quote

j.lukow wrote:

The rule I learned was that if you hand hold a camera with telephoto there is an easy way guess you limits. The rule was that you take the focal length of the lens - lets say 200mm - put a 1 in front of it as a fraction - 1/200. This tells you what should be the slowest speed you can hand hold = 1/250. Years ago this came up in a couple discussions when people were wondering why a picture had a blur.
Do you agree ?


Just to add to your explanation of the reciprocal rule, while it is generally true, many recommend doubling the fraction's denominator, thus in your example, it would be 1/400. Light permitting, I try to double it. Else, I'm looking for something to brace against, even at the "recommended" shutter speed setting.

As for people not recommending tripods as much anymore, perhaps the fact that many digital cameras handle very high ISOs with very little image quality loss is a reason why people forego their use? Just a guess.

Me, I have a mid-weight tripod I will pack (an old Manfrotto-made Bogen) if I think I'll need one. It's stout enough for 35mm or digital with long lenses and medium format. However, I'm much more likely to pack a monopod because of sheer convenience. Time of day is often a factor. If I know that my shooting will extend into the evening hours and I'm shooting slow film or not wishing to boost the ISO on my digital, then I'll definitely be packing a tripod. And a cable release for my mirror up film cameras as well.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Tripod necessity . . . Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:

Just to add to your explanation of the reciprocal rule, while it is generally true, many recommend doubling the fraction's denominator, thus in your example, it would be 1/400. Light permitting, I try to double it. Else, I'm looking for something to brace against, even at the "recommended" shutter speed setting...


Thanks, I had never heard the advice of doubling the denominator - I will keep that in mind.
I agree that with digital photography have much higher speeds probably generates this idea, it was just that it was coming from a site promoting film with the advice carried through to medium format ?!?!

It just seems counter intuitive.

Jim


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, definitely, especially if this is a site devoted to film. And medium format no less. Perhaps they just assume that the reader knows to bring a tripod, thus they don't even bother mentioning it? Hrm . . . if the topic is camping or any sort of outdoor excursion, though, that doesn't seem likely to me.

You reckon they're gonna get some mail on this oversight? Cool


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Oh, definitely, especially if this is a site devoted to film. And medium format no less. Perhaps they just assume that the reader knows to bring a tripod, thus they don't even bother mentioning it? Hrm . . . if the topic is camping or any sort of outdoor excursion, though, that doesn't seem likely to me.

You reckon they're gonna get some mail on this oversight? Cool


That was a while ago and when I first saw it the article was part of a series . . .
I was going to try to reply but could find a comment / reply spot Wink

Jim


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Handheld photos of laser point reveal shake well. Dense modern sensors reveal more than film. Better to test, but even I use the reciprocal rule, because it works for me. I agree it's a little optimistic. Doubling speed might be Overkill. Of course all this gets blown by fast subjects. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Handheld photos of laser point reveal shake well. Dense modern sensors reveal more than film. Better to test, but even I use the reciprocal rule, because it works for me. I agree it's a little optimistic. Doubling speed might be Overkill. Of course all this gets blown by fast subjects. Smile


The reciprocal rule is a very useful guide, where practical I try to keep a stop or two faster, but where situations demand it I'm not afraid to try 2 or more stops slower (especially if braced).

When pixel peeping shake might be noticeable in all of the slower shots, but many look fine at screen size or (a somewhat smaller proportion) printed to A4.

I do have several tripods, but frequently won't have any with me when it's only borderline useful, so frequently end up pushing the limits. At least with digital I can take multiple efforts, and often I'm assisted by stabilization.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I rarely go out without some kind of support, either a monopod or tripod. because it's hard to find a walk from our house that isn't in dense woodland, and there's rivers with waterfalls, so it's useful to have a support.

But I've never bought a new one.Tripods still seem to crop up in charity shops all the time, mostly cheap and flimsy things that are no real use at all, but often I come across older good quality ones for next to nothing. And I snap them up.
Everyone wants the latest carbon fibre tripod, so the old alloy ones get shoved in a cupboard until they get taken to the charity shop, and I don't mind an alloy tripod at all, I've got tripods for every occasion, a very nice old SLIK lives in the back of my car. I've got a full size Benbow that I'm sure I could climb on, and a Chinese Sirui that's small and light enough to fit in most camera bags - and it's surprisingly rigid for a cheap tripod.

It's more or less automatic for me to take 'something' with me now.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I've got a full size Benbow that I'm sure I could climb on


I own a Benbo too! They were (are?) made in England, as I recall. Mine isn't the largest they made, I don't think, but it's pretty good size. The tubes are probably 1-1/4" in diameter or so.

Tell me, would you happen to know where I can buy replacement rubber feet for the Benbo? You know, they're these pointy things. And after they get old, they split and fall off the tripod. Mine is feetless now. I have emailed the US distributor for Benbo several times, asking where I can buy replacement feet for mine, but I've never gotten a response.

It's a great tripod, and often is the only one that can get the job done in tricky situations.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
I've got a full size Benbow that I'm sure I could climb on


I own a Benbo too! They were (are?) made in England, as I recall. Mine isn't the largest they made, I don't think, but it's pretty good size. The tubes are probably 1-1/4" in diameter or so.

Tell me, would you happen to know where I can buy replacement rubber feet for the Benbo? You know, they're these pointy things. And after they get old, they split and fall off the tripod. Mine is feetless now. I have emailed the US distributor for Benbo several times, asking where I can buy replacement feet for mine, but I've never gotten a response.

It's a great tripod, and often is the only one that can get the job done in tricky situations.


I got mine from Benbo in UK, ordered from their website. Have two Trekkers. Smile

http://www.patersonphotographic.com/category.php?categoryID=1245

One of my Trekkers is the original model made by Kennett Engineering in UK, who sold out to Patterson's.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, thanks for the link! At last, I've found where I can get the feet. Based on their descriptions, I must have the original Kennett Classic #1 kit (mine has the original ball head). Geez, those things are expensive. I bought mine used over 25 years ago, paid about $50 for it as I dimly recall.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some time ago Lloydy posted a link to a few of the old tilting ball heads. I kick myself for not getting one... Sad


PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last week I tested Sonnar 200/2.8 (my daughter said ¨we got a melon-like lens¨ when she got the pack) on Canon 6D, handheld - everything was good, about 20 shots, even I got some fitness for free - 2 kilos I think. Better said bodybuilding ot weightlifting. So later I mounted the composition on a chinese shoulder standby and all I got was - no one in focus. The two sessions both focused with Magic Lantern´s focus peaking. Im sure not the chinese origin is the cause, but just bipod is not a tripod. Maybe itsbetter for video.

About the blur in general, I found focus peaking much better than any autofocus system, in low light. Also the last month´s tests using mobile softboxed flash gives me better results than the fast shutter + high ISO, because my models always are moving too...

With the heavy lenses I have no choice and tripod must be used, regardless the blur produced, I get tired after just some shots handheld (100kg and very dedicated to the weight lifting sports in the past).

Cheerz!