Do I need a tripod?

[Dave Miller]

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?

 

[Nick Zentena]

I got to say this. If you're going to tie the camera to a tripod then why shoot 35mm?

For the price of those Manfrotto legs and an okay head you've got yourself an older 645. Tie that to a tripod. Even a cheaper one like the Velbon i want to say 343?

I think a tripod is a great thing. Everything the guys have said about it improving your photos can be proven true. But for me 35mm is about speed of use.

 

[ruimart11]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[JBrunner]

*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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

#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

 

[JBrunner]

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

#3 It depends on what you hope to accomplish.

 

[Soeren]

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?

Now I think you are talking rubbish
If you use 400 ISO film it could be because you are forced to shoot handheld. Using a tripod and ISO 100, 50 or even 25 gives sharper finer grained pics.
And we are not talking war photography here If my subject does not force me to shoot handheld e.g. action, moving kids and street reportage kind of photography I'd use a tripod even with 35mm film and wa lenses.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

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

But only if you are workling with static subjects where the loss of the time taken to erect a tripod is insignficant. There are a number of amateurs out there who think the only kind of serious photography is slow considered landscape images and that anything else is sloppy mindless snapshots - they couldn't be more wrong!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My buying a tripod just after high school led me quickly to buying 4x5 gear, because the photographs I took with the 35mm on a tripod were more compositionally and technically complete than the hand held stuff. With better, tighter compositions came a desire for more detail, more control over the shapes of things, and being able to tailor exposure and development for the needs of each individual image.

Then again, I could have felt totally constrained by the tripod and the slower, more deliberate approach to things, and I would have spun off on some equally enjoyable hand held journey.

If you have an itch, scratch it - otherwise you'll never know

Murray

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Markok, get a tripod. Don't get a tripod. Doesn't really matter. You are taking good pictures now. Keep taking them. Get one when you want to. Don't worry about it now if you don't want one. Buy more film instead. And have fun. Rock on, dude.

 

[BobbyR]

Having read most of this, I would like a recommendation on what are the best choices for a tripod and head that can hold a five or more pound lens and a three-four pound camera whilst being cranked at least twelve inches above the base without the tripod deciding I want to take a picture of the sky.

My mother got me a poor little Velbon tripod that I put through hell twenty years ago before it said I'm done, and this time I do not to torture some poor tripod by making it do what it was not designed to do.

I am a touch over six-feet tall.
Bobby

 

[Ian Grant]

Bobby, you need to think about what type of head, that can make a big difference to the cost of a tripod.

Two of my decent tripods have a single handle head adjustment which I find very easy to use, this controls tilt and swivel, needs care with the 10"x8" camera but is perfect with 5x4 and video.

My Mannfroto (O74) has 3 handles to adjust the head and is far more substantial, it's not as quick to use but is undoubtedly better with the 10x8. I test all my tripods by making sure they can support my weight I would definitely recommend this tripod.

Good tripods are expensive, it's worth trying to find a good one second hand.

Ian

 

[dferrie]

My Mannfroto (O74) has 3 handles to adjust the head and is far more substantial,

I have a similar Tripod, it's a little heavy but really solid. I use it with both my 35mm kit and my Mamiya 645. I find the big advantage to using a tripod is that it can make you slow down and take more care in framing etc. I keep meaning to buy a small spirit level that will clip into the hot shoe on my camera to help ensure level horizons, especially for seascapes.

It took me a while to invest in the tripod but I'm glad I did, I'd recommend buying the best you can afford as they can last a lifetime.

David

 

[Terrick E. Meakin]

Tripods,yes or no

Dont ever forget, the sharpest lens you have is your tripod.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The worst photo you take is better then the best photo you don't.