<div>
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm
Are tripodsreallyobsolete?
Post your opinions below!
brendan
<div></div>
</div>
Printable View
<div>
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm
Are tripodsreallyobsolete?
Post your opinions below!
brendan
<div></div>
</div>
Agree and disagree
Agree: You have ISO 3200, ISO 6400 etc etc. Why not use it? We're not limited to ISO 400 of the film age. Grainy? Yes. Picture of a lifetime? Worth it. Plus stabilization in lenses.
Disagree: Long shutter exposures during daytime (that's where ND filters come into play) and night, fireworks, macro (with hybrid IS coming, I'm sure tripods won't be necessary), bracketed HDRs, conceptual photos and panoramics/360 deg bubble views, self portraits when there's no one to take pictures of you and/or your group, big and heavy lenses (500mm handheld??) etc.
Whenever I travel I bring my tripod along, but it always stays in the room. Makes me a lot more mobile without the tripod. Last time I used my tripod fully is when I shot fireworks during New Year.
Ken argues that VR and IS lenses contribute to the tripod being obsolete. However, I have 6 lenses, and only two of them have IS. I also do quite a bit of shooting in low light, and I've found a tripod or monopod to be very useful (because of longer shutter speeds). Also, tripods make compositing and HDRs that much easier because framing does not change between shots. And lastly, tripods make self-portraits a heck of a lot easier...
I defenitely disagree on most parts, but I do agree on some parts of his story.
<div>I'll just quote here:</div>
"Shoot at ISO 400, 800 and 1,600 on a DSLR and the results are as good as slow film used to be."
Yes, that's true...but do we really want that quality? No! We want high quality. High ISO is in my opinion for emergency only.
Tripod is an important equipment in certain conditions. Yes vibration reduction or image stabilizer helps you out, but not like a tripod can do. I don't use it really often, but I do have one. Just for the times I can't do without like with long shuttertimes and bracketing.
I also have to agree with Ken in a few ways. You could miss some shots when carrying around a tripod. It just narrows down your responses. (Even really small and light tripods consume space)
And for most point and shoot and amateur shooters high ISO and top notch sharpness aren't really important. But for serious (amateur and professional) photographers a tripod comes in handy a lot of time. We don't choose a fatter and bigger DSLR over a tiny and lightweigth point and shoot for just the looks [H] The fact that my 5D can do iso 25000something doesn't mean I intend to use it at those numbers. I'd rather pick my tripod and go with iso 100 then to go where no-one really wants to go. Unless you got no other options of course. Like to have to stop action.
I think Kens story got some good points, but he can't justify it to generalize it to ALL photographers. For a lot of point and shooters it is true I guess. That's my opinion.
Disagree: I always want the lowest ISO possible, IS wont help me when taking a 3 second exposure of a river in the woods, I don't want to pay a potential extra $600 for a lens when a tripod will work just as well most of the time. This doesn't mean I don't take advantage of higher ISOs when necessary though
This guy is totally wrong. I think you guys summed it up pretty nice, I have noting to say except that this guy is **so** wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren
haha that was my first impression too; just wanted to see what others thought of it.
You have to consider the source. Ken Rockwell seems to make his living by making huge, bold statements that tend to fly in the face of, well, just about everyone and everything. I enjoy his website very much, but I also take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt. Some of his other crazy statements include (paraphrased) that there is no reason to use more than 6 megapixels, the Nikon D40 is the dslr that almost everyone should use if they want to make outstanding images, and that he can afford to buy all of the mega expensive gear that he has because he drinks water instead of coffee and soda!
Agree with Ralph and others. Agree and disagree with Ken-I'm-an-opinionated-weenie-Rockwell. On walkaround outings where I'm bringing my camera, I usually don't bring a tripod. When I'm going out to take pictures, I do.
Took the two shots below on a trip to San Francisco last week, the one on the left (at Yerba Buena Gardens) was handheld, the one on the right(from my hotel room about 5 miles from Sutro tower)was tripod-mounted. Clearly, the one on the right would not have been possible without a tripod.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/YBGardens.jpg[/img] [img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Sutro.jpg[/img]
<div class="CommonAvatarListItem"]Rebel T1i, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM @ 17mm, f/2.8, 1/4 s Rebel T1i, EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L USM, f/11, 30 s </div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Ken Rockwell is talking nonsense as usual... I sometimes want 10-20 sec exposures for waterfalls, light trails, etc. I definitely need my tripod for that...
Tony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Printezis
I try to imagine how large the image stabilization system must be to control for such shuttertimes [:P] I guess a tripod would be 10 times lighter and more usable in that matter hihi [:D]
I think there is many factors to consider here: personal preferrence, steadiness of your grip, amount of gear you can or want totake, type of photography you're up to, and so forth...
I've taken atripod with me on over 30000 miles worth of trips and plan on usingit in the future.
Hmm... just went to ken's homepage: http://www.kenrockwell.com
He has a picture of him with a camera. Take a look at it for 1 second. Does it look strange to you?
He's holding the camera with his left hand (the grip is on the left side).
As far as I know, no one makes such cameras... [*-)]
I must say I can sort of see his point, but I must disagree. Tri/monopods will always remain an essential part of photography until we can get ISO figures that have no noise and are through the roof. (hey, look how far digital sensors have come in the last 15 years, its possible) even then, there will be shots that absolutely require stabilization.
I don't necessarily agree but I'm on board.
I think he is kind of taking a less techie more whimsical approach here. That usually doesn't go over well on this forum. I think he is more trying to challenge the old school folks, that are married to tripods, go out and be creative. I agree with him that a tripod tend to take some creativeness out of the process. There will always be a place for tripods, but I think he also states that.
KR is a wingnut. He makes sweeping, sometimes self-contradictory statements, and people eat it up. He is popular because novices like simple, boiled-down comments about what to buy. Photography is technical and good photography very much so. But many beginners just want to dive in and the technology and selection can be overwhelming.
Thus KR has developed quite a following for making overly broad claims, and he ingratiates himself with the various retailers who get business from him. But if you've ever seen him talk (there are videos of him floating around online), he is all over the place. It's incredibly irritating to watch and doubly so to listen. Why should any of this be surprising? He tried to justify the use of a racially and historically insensitive term ("Oriental") to distinguish Canon and Nikon from Leica, and implied that "Orientals" can't make better cameras than "the Germans."
Anybody who actually cares to develop an understanding of photography knows that KR is a joke.
FWIW, I'd like to see him shoot self-portraits without a tripod. I'd like to see him use an 800mm lens without a tripod. I'd like to see how well IS works for him when he's doing an exposure longer than 1 second. I'd like to see him shoot macro of a dimly lit aquarium without a tripod. There are a zillion situations where a tripod is necessary, not just for sharp photos, but just to get a photo at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Not long after I made my first post on this thread, I got to thinking about KR and realized he's sort of the Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh of <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]photography camera equipment. He talks alot of garbage, lots of which he probably doesn't even believe, but knows that people will get excited about it one way or the other,and lots of them will come back for more, even if they disagree! (Sorry about the run-on)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcnewkirk
EXACTLY!
Well put, well put.
Let's not sully the good name of Howard Stern :-) Rush may be full of it but anyone who listens to Stern on a regular basis knows that he says what he means and means what he says...as far as tripods go...they will always be a part of photography. It's great that we don't rely on them the way we used to but several posts leading up to this one pointed out the many situations that require them.Quote:
Originally Posted by lcnewkirk
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
No. I disagree with it on many levels:
- I disagree with the very idea of anyone reading KR voluntarily. (I do support it as a form of torture for terrorists).
- I disagree with making a post to talk about ideas stated by KR.
- I disagree with linking to KR's web site.
- I disagree with most of the fiction spouted by KR.
As for why I disagree with it:
- Ken Rockwell misleads, misinforms, and misdirects.
- The KR site has pages on aliens and anal probes
- Every KR web page has at least one misleading or incorrect statement.
- Most of the time, KR mixes fact with fiction in equal parts.
- KR is a numpty divot.
- Ken's writing is so bad that it makes me want to claw my eyes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
LOL
I don't oftenvisit Ken's website. Mostly because I get all the information I need right here, but also because sometimes after reading his statements I want to give myself an uppercut to the jaw to make the pain stop.
I use a tripod VERY often (when it's not an inconvenience) so I certainly haven't seen the death of the tripod in my photography anyway.
I attempt to use the lowest ISO possible every time I shoot to keep IQ nice. This forces me to use a tripod at times but I don't care. I'd rather have to carry my tripd around to get a shot I'm happy with than shoot at ISO 3200 and never use the shot due to all the noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Daniel, on that note, here's something the CIA should use to interrogate terrorists:
from kenrockwell.com:
"The left handed NikonF100you see on my home page was loaned to me for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a left handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right arm and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on myContactpage for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself that it's not just a flipped negative. Nikon decided against producing the camera, but let me keep the beta on indefinite loan as thanks for all my input. (This was long before I started this site.) It of course remains property of Nikon Japan. I may not sell it, although it would fetch a pretty penny in the collector's market. I have to return it to Nikon eventually, and of course when it breaks it won't be repaired. I even had a veterinarian friend in Africa who specializes in elephant care send me some phallus hide from the Loxodonta Africana (known for its flexibility and grip when wet) which I then had a local taxidermist apply to my camera in place of the original rubber. It took a lot of paperwork with the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game but at least it doesn't peel off on myD1Has the rubber does."
That's right! Ken Rockwell has elephant penis skin on his Nikon F100. 'Nuff said.
That's potentially the strangest paragraph I have ever read...
Ken Rockwell is obviously not deeply in to astrophotography [:)]
Seriously- there are times I think the guy just likes to make crazy statements to see how people will react. Of course IS and newer cameras allow us to take all sorts of handheld pictures we never could before. But to say that tripods are obsolete is just silly.
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Yeah but you can always stop down if you have a big sensor. If anything, I would think larger sensors with better light sensitivity would make you need a tripod less often. What the heck is he talking about?
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
I'm sure he is trying to make some kind of point here, but I'm not clever enough to know what it is. If you want to see if a tripod is of any use, why wouldn't you compare apples to apples? Why compare f/8 without to f/22 with?
No - not obsolete. Not only are there certain types of shot that require one to get anything approaching decent results (long exposures, panoramas etc.), merely having and setting up a tripod causes you to engage a different artistic aesthetic and one I wouldn't want to give up. Rockwell is always fun - I love his opinionated articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
so i guess he can pass off as Dan Brown of photgraphy equipment????[;)]
tripods will always be needing in some sort of way.
what about exposures longer than 1/8th or slower?
i dont think IS nor VR will ever be that good.
It's really interesting to read the thoughts of someone so utterly clueless. I can't imagine shooting a big event like a country club Christmas Party and hand holding all the portraits. Not to mention the huge amount of time I would waste setting down the camera to adjust a pose and then picking it up and recomposing shots...
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"]I Agree. Why even bother telling photographers to "throw away" their tripods? In fact, what is the purpose of that article anyway? Fortunately, I value my tripod and use it very frequently - It will be a very long time before it ends up in the trash. But what type of useful insight is this? What is he trying to prove? What is he trying to teach us?
[i]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"]Hang onto your tripod if you're shooting a real camera like a [url="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sku=HSH2D39]Hasselblad[/url], Gandolfi, [url="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sku=LF120]Linhof[/url], Silvestri, [url="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sku=HM21645]Horseman[/url], [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm]Tachihara[/url], Gilde, [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/seitz-6x17-digital.htm]Seitz[/url], Sinar or even a Wisner, Wista or [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/7.htm]Mamiya[/url], but toss it if you're shooting a popular digital SLR [/i]
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"]Wait, am I shooting a fake camera? I own a Linhof medium format kit - Is that real? [:H]
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"]3.) [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm]Diffraction[/url]
becomes more significant with smaller format sensors, making smaller
apertures like f/16 off limits because diffraction makes images visibly
softer with today's high-resolution cameras. Compact point-and-shoot
cameras have much smaller sensors, and have no apertures smaller than
f/8 for exactly this reason.[/i]
[i]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]5.) Today's digital SLRs'
have spectacular quality at high ISOs, if you're in marginal light.
Shoot at ISO 400, 800 and 1,600 on a DSLR and the results are as good
as slow film used to be.
<span style="font-size: small;"]I really wish real life ISO performance comparisons were provided to back up his generalizations.
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Sadly many people still look
like idiots using tripods with digital cameras in daylight. These guys
are throwbacks to the 1950s, or the early 2000s.
<span style="font-size: small;"]Need I say more?
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"]The-Digital-Picture will always be, in my opinion, the most down-to-earth photography resource on the Web. Honest, concise, clear, and well valuable insight based on observation and real world experience.
Hi
My experience with KR.
Once a friend of mine forwarded me some article to read from his website. By the time i was even done with the first paragraph i knew this guy simply writes to stay in business by attracting undue attention via his impractical/ semi-impractical statements. His words arent for people who are serious or for real in photography.
i knew then that i would never visit that website again.
Long live the-digital-picture.com !! Long live Bryan !!
Daya