Tripods for landscapes

H

Hayden

Messages
16
Name
Hayden Morrison
Edit My Images
Yes
First off, sorry if this is a stupid question, and sorry if this should be in the beginner section (mods feel free to move it if needs be) but I'm off work with a broken arm and I thought I would invest some time in cameras again. I've previously shied away from learning any actual technique to do with photography mainly because I'm impatient but this seems like a 'nice' forum compared to others...

I've been taking photos on and off for about 8 years or so and the ones which always seem to come out best are landscapes. I had a redsnapper tripod (which ironically snapped) but I found it cumbersome and slightly unnecessary when I did use it. I know most guys carry tripods 24/7 but do I really need a new one? In short, would I notice drastic improvements in terms of sharpness on photos such as these if I had been using a tripod?


Loch Tay by Hayden Morrison, on Flickr


Snowdonia Storm by Hayden Morrison, on Flickr

Any other kit suggestions?

Thanks for your help
 
ive just got a manfrotto 190 xpro3. its taller than the redsnapper, has a centre column that can go horizontal for low down shooting. came with a free 3 way pan and titl head. and weighs half what my redsnapper ( which also broke ) did.
i think its a matter of patience when shooting landscapes especially if you want sunsets/ sunrise shots or are waiting for just the right light and a tripod allows you to set the camera up in position, sit back and wait. combine with a shutter release as well i find the whole experience far more relaxing being able to just set it up and wait for the right moment rather than having the camera around my neck or hanging off my hip on a black rapid strap.
 
Good point, I would say both of those photos were taken reasonably on the fly. Maybe some forward thinking might be useful, I usually just think 'oh god, the light is perfect' then run around taking lots of pictures and often come out empty handed
 
I think that the best thing about a tripod is that it slows you down, I find I take more care over composition, getting horizons, level etc.

the type of tripod that you use really depends on it's purpose, as no one size fits all. I have 3 that I regularly use, one very compact (3LG with Ball Head), one very light (Giottios with Pan/Tilt Head) and one heavy with geared head (Manfrotto 055). I love the geared head, but really wouldn't want to carry it very far from the car!!
 
Tripod, pretty much always. In strong light you can hand hold if you can get the shutter speed down.

Handheld, but the brightness from the snow meant a really fast shutter speed

_DSC3053 (1) by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Normally landscapes are shot at the bum end of each day meaning light levels are lower so more light needs let into the camera for a given ISO and aperture. Narrow apertures are often needed for landscapes so this again means the shutter speeds need slowed down to let enough light in.

Never mind if you want to capture movement

_DSC3117 (1) by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Golden light, F11, ISO 100 1/5th sec. Wouldn't want to hand hold this

_DSC4139 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Tripod will also help you level the camera, wonky horizons are a big no.
 
I find I think a lot more about composition when using a tripod. So much so, that I don't shoot without it any more. I'd agree that it's also great for that 'waiting for the right moment' shot. I started with a Manfrotto 190CL and a basic three-way head before moving on to a 055 CF and 410 geared head. I love the 410 for it's ability to make minute adjustments with ease, and I don't find the weight to be too much of a handicap - that said, the CF legs are pretty light.
 
I would also recommend a decent set of tripod spikes, if not built in, to ensure maximum stability especially so if shooting on a forest/woodland etc due to the effect of 'springy' ground.
 
It all depends on your shutter speed. The reason lots of landscapers use tripods is that they are generally shooting at base ISO with small apertures and often with filters, restricting the light entering the camera and resulting in the shutter speed becoming too long to hand-hold.

If your shutter speed is OK to hand-hold, you don't need a tripod. If it isn't, you do. Simple as.

How do you know if your shutter speed is too slow for hand holding? There's a general rule that if it is at or slower than 1/focal length you should support the camera. So that's 1/50th for a 50mm lens, 1/24th for a 24mm lens etc. However I'd generally use a tripod if I'm getting below 1/100th on a non-stabilised lens.

I like not having to cart a tripod about. You get more freedom to move and compose. I'm currently shooting landscapes with an 85mm lens at f/1.2 (on purpose) and am enjoying not having to cart a tripod around.
 
Tobers said:
It all depends on your shutter speed. The reason lots of landscapers use tripods is that they are generally shooting at base ISO with small apertures and often with filters, restricting the light entering the camera and resulting in the shutter speed becoming too long to hand-hold.

If your shutter speed is OK to hand-hold, you don't need a tripod. If it isn't, you do. Simple as.

How do you know if your shutter speed is too slow for hand holding? There's a general rule that if it is at or slower than 1/focal length you should support the camera. So that's 1/50th for a 50mm lens, 1/24th for a 24mm lens etc. However I'd generally use a tripod if I'm getting below 1/100th on a non-stabilised lens.

I like not having to cart a tripod about. You get more freedom to move and compose. I'm currently shooting landscapes with an 85mm lens at f/1.2 (on purpose) and am enjoying not having to cart a tripod around.
Click to expand...


is that same basic maths principal the same on crop sensor cameras i wonder.
sure a 50mm is a 50mm regardless of what camera its on be it ff, aps-c, mirrorless compact etc. but then the field of view changes ( no not going into that debate again its been done a million times) so lets just for arguments sake call it focal length equivalent on say a MFT camera of a 50mm lens is with a 2x crop then equal / equiv to 100mm.
so then... does your shutter speed have to be equal to the focal equiv of 100mm so 100th sec. or regardless of what crop sensor it is still based on the ACTUAL lens size so 1/50th.
 
dean messenger said:
is that same basic maths principal the same on crop sensor cameras i wonder.
sure a 50mm is a 50mm regardless of what camera its on be it ff, aps-c, mirrorless compact etc. but then the field of view changes ( no not going into that debate again its been done a million times) so lets just for arguments sake call it focal length equivalent on say a MFT camera of a 50mm lens is with a 2x crop then equal / equiv to 100mm.
so then... does your shutter speed have to be equal to the focal equiv of 100mm so 100th sec. or regardless of what crop sensor it is still based on the ACTUAL lens size so 1/50th.
Click to expand...


I would say it should be the equivalent focal length. If you wobble the lens by 1 degree it is going to be more noticeable on the crop sensor camera as the 1 degree is a greater percentage of the lens angle of view.
 
dean messenger said:
is that same basic maths principal the same on crop sensor cameras i wonder.
sure a 50mm is a 50mm regardless of what camera its on be it ff, aps-c, mirrorless compact etc. but then the field of view changes ( no not going into that debate again its been done a million times) so lets just for arguments sake call it focal length equivalent on say a MFT camera of a 50mm lens is with a 2x crop then equal / equiv to 100mm.
so then... does your shutter speed have to be equal to the focal equiv of 100mm so 100th sec. or regardless of what crop sensor it is still based on the ACTUAL lens size so 1/50th.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't worry about it. It's a guideline not a rule. Life's too short. What counts is experience with your camera in multiple situations which allows you to work out how it will behave in certain circumstances. In the situation where I'm getting close to 1/focal length, whatever camera/sensor I'm using, I'll know I need to hold the camera carefully or put it on a tripod. If I don't have a tripod I'll up the ISO a bit, or just try very hard to stand still and squeeze the shutter button not snatch it.
 
I was happy with the 1/focal length shutter speed rule when I used film. Now I have 24MP on a 1.5 crop sensor, plus often print at A3, where A2 used to be my maximum, I've doubled the acceptable shutter speed. True, image stabilisation increases the hand holdable shutter speed by 2-4 stops, but using a tripod with IS off is usually s bit shaer than I can get with image stabilisation hand held.
 
I only do landscape, and for me, a tripod is a must, especially as I do a lot of long exposure stuff. Though while they are an essential item for what I do, I detest the things with their archaic design and extension mechanisms. Have found carbon is better, not just for the weight aspects, just really does seem to damp vibrations in the wind, I thought that was a marketing thing until my experience bore it out.

The thing is, if you do get interested in landscape photography, rather than it just being an occasional foray a tripod (well a moderately decent one) just allows you so much more creativity and opportunities, especially as a lot of it is done at begging and end of day during low light levels.
 
For the shots you've posted, a tripod probably wouldn't have made any difference to sharpness.

However, a tripod will give you much more flexibility in shutter speed, meaning you can select a speed that's right for the available light and effect you wish to portray, rather than having to select a shutter speed based on hand holding. As others have said, a tripod is invaluable in lower light conditions, such as sunsets and sunrises.

Something also to consider is the reduction in ISO that can be achieved thought the use of longer shutter speeds when using a tripod, and the resulting reduction in noise.

Personally, I can't remember the last time I took a landscape photo without a tripod. Again, I agree with others above on the benefits of being able to slow down and concentrate on composition.
 
I don't recall the last time I shot a landscape without a tripod. It just makes life so much easier, especially when working with filters.
 
A tripod will give you a stable platform to work from , I use a carbon fiber unit and hang my camera bag under it to aid stability , I find it allows me better prep time , , and once you have framed your subject you can wait for the light and then bang , nailed it
 
A tripod isn't 100% essential to get landscape shots BUT not having one severally limits your options.. you'll struggle, if not find it impossible, to get low light shots and long exposure shots.. I'd always have one but not necessarily always carry it.. if I'm out for a hiking day in good light I don't bother and just push up the iso a tad, if I'm out on a pure photography day it's always with me though

Simon
 
I can see all the plus's for a tripod with just the one drawback "cumbersome". I use a monopod, firmly braced and get the shutter speed down farely low but I carry most of my tog stuff on a motorbike BUT, if I could find a sturdy travel tripod at a sensible price....I'd buy it!
 
I would also look at feisol there tripods are very well built and very light .I had an alloy gitzo which I used very little but after buying the feisol carbon fibre the tripod is now part of my camera full time for my landscape work
 
Manfrotto 055 with a ball head. Got it from Wex at £169. Or I use a Hama traveller if I am walking round a city
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top