All other things being equal, yes a tripod will improve IQ. But if you aren't pixel peeping, or shooting over an hour after dusk, I very rarely see the need.
Specialty work - macro, studio, etc of course gives it a good use case
@dpollitt I can see why he drives some people batty. I think any time you offer or ask for a "one size fits all" solution, you're setting yourself up to look like an idiot. Know where it's appropriate (and needed) and use it then.
I get fired up when people start recommending tripods like they were recommended to me when I was starting. They do help you to slow down, compose, think about the shot, etc. They also do help more with the crappy lenses most of us start out with. But when you start to get into mid to upper range equipment, you know how to compose well, you understand the technical limitations and applications of your equipment, etc you don't need a tripod as much as some people make it sound.
Yes there are applications. I'm talking about the guy shooting old faithful at yellowstone setting up his tripod like it is going to make a difference at 5pm in the afternoon with a 18-55mm kit lens on.
@dpollitt look, i'm not suggesting a $2k tripod, but there's a big difference in EVERY WAY between a cheap pod and the next step up. It may not be a big difference to your style, but it is to alot of styles. Its a perfectly valid, general recommendation to me
@dpollitt: And, you would be surprised how difficult it can be to frame, compose, focus, and snap a landscape shot all hand-held. It gets even more complex and difficult when you involve polarizing, ND, or GND filters.
landscape photography is a careful, meticulous "craft", one that isn't very well suited to hand-held execution
@dpollitt It depends on how steady your hands are. Some people don't have a stance of rock. Many of the most appealing landscape shots tend to be lower light, shot in the early morning at sunrise or late afternoon at sunset, where light considerably less. When you need an f/11 aperture to maintain good sharpness and proper depth of field, you might only have a 1/5th second shutter speed, in which case...yes, a tripod is absolutely necessary.
when it comes to shots that I craft...yes, I always shoot ISO 100
when its action, I let ISO go wherever it goes....but when you don't have motion (or possibly even want a long exposure to blur the motion of sky and water), I always use ISO 100....so do a LOT of landscape photographers
a tripod is one of the fundamentals of landscape photography....its rarely practical to shoot landscapes hand-held...from a sharpness perspective, as well as from many other perspectives
@rfusca I'm perfectly content with ISO 400 for a landscape, putting my camera in burst mode and firing off 6 shots and choosing the sharpest later - rather then carrying 3-4lbs on my back to hike into the backcountry
if we have ISO 102,400 or whatever, and its very low noise, with 6 stop IS built into our lenses(or bodies), I dont think a tripod is going to get used much
and we aren't even that far from either of those things.. that will happen within the next few years
sure, those would make it good for the low light things, but there's still at least three other reasons for tripods. Long exposures for artistic reasons, consistency in pano shots, and when you need it to be held independently of your two hands
@dpollitt Doubtful. Not everything lends itself to being done hand-held. And no matter how good they improve signal-to-noise ratio, when you amplify the signal, your still going to be amplifying noise.
@rfusca Pretty good. I certainly feel a hell of a lot better.
I've only lost about half a pound though, even though I just spent an entire weekend of 12 hour days working in my yard...and that didn't seem to have the slightest impact on my weight.
I have all these rings on my lawn...green spot in the middle where the rabbit sat, ring of burnt grass around that as it chewed its way in a circle, and pooped as it went
I've been all over, but I'm hoping to at least head up to red rocks for some hiking this time. I'm going for a wedding so its a lot different then most times when I go for the ski hills
@jrista Looks like a sculpture. There's something resembling a mounting plate at the bottom of each foot.
@jrista I missed the bit where you were bemoaning being "stuck" with that 100-400 L lens. Life's rough, huh? Sheesh (he says, slinking off into the corner with his 70-300 Canon)....
@DLambert LOL. Well, I LOVE that lens. And to be honest, I think its more the camera than the lens that is really the problem. My 450D sucks with noise, and anything above ISO 400 is pretty noisy. Even ISO 400 itself can be fairly noisy when you have large solid blue and green areas.
But, an f/5.6 aperture is pretty limiting, regardless of how nice the lens is overall.
I'd like to get the 600mm f/4 at some point, but its about as expensive as two 5D II's
