<div>
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm
Are tripodsreallyobsolete?
Post your opinions below!
brendan
<div></div>
</div>
<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!
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>
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote