I got to say this. If you're going to tie the camera to a tripod then why shoot 35mm?
*2
Other than low light level photography [flood lit building and fountains, etc] one does not need a tripod unless one is prone to Operator Assisted Failures [read: OAF].
Steve
#1 It all depends on what you think sharp is.
#2 A tripod doesn't limit creativity, unless you are lazy.
If one cannot hold 1/focal length seconds steady, then use 1/(2*focal length) seconds. My point was that for 35mm the tripod can be overused leading to a great loss in the usefulness of a 35mm camera.
If one can only take sharp photograph with a tripod, then they would do much better to use MF or LF and gain the resolution too, since they already have lost the advantages of 35mm.
Steve
I’m reading a lot of rubbish in this thread.
It seems that you are using a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens and 400 ISO film. Unless you are shooting in very poor light you do not need a tripod. Forget it; put it on you Christmas list.The most important thing to do is to take pictures; lots of pictures, so spend the tripod money on film. The question of technical quality can wait. About the only thing I would use a tripod for with 35mm is landscape work. Other than that forget it, hand-hold. The minimum shutter-speed equals lens focal length is a good rule, but like all rules should be broken if it means getting the picture. I wonder how many shots Robert Capa would have got on the D Day beaches if he had used a tripod?
I agree 100% on John Shaw - If the picture is worth taking, it's worth taking on a tripod. Just listen to Brooks Jensen's podcasts (www.lenswork.com), where somewhere he explains that the sharpest lens... is a tripod
My Mannfroto (O74) has 3 handles to adjust the head and is far more substantial,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?