Do I need a tripod?

Messages
516
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I primarily shoot professional sports but I like a little bit of wildlife from time to time, photographed red deer in Glen Etive last week and I've photographed ospreys, swans etc. in the last couple of months and I'll do more as the opportunity arises - I was in Yellowstone in the summer and I'm going back in the next couple of years which is what I'm preparing for.

This summer I used my Fuji x-t2 and 100-400 and got OK results but while I love my Fuji I don't really like the images from that combination at the long end - and everything wildlife I've photographed in Scotland has been with my Canon kit that I use for sport.

So I intend taking my Canon 400 f2.8 ii with me on my next visit to the states - With this in mind I have been looking at getting a decent Gitzo tripod and a good gimbal to support the lens - That comes to just over a grand and while I've got the money sitting there for them I'm now debating how much worth I'd get out of it, rather than just using my monopod to support the camera and lens - In Yellowstone we happened across wildlife on a regular basis, it wasn't really a case of stalking out an area and waiting for something to appear.

The major advantages of a tripod with a gimbal over a good monopod to me are for birds in flight (being able to swing the lens up to an angle which would be tricky with a monopod) and for holding the lens ready to use waiting for an animal to appear or do something interesting.

As far as the first of these situations is concerned I can hand hold the camera and 400 reasonably well though I wouldn't want to do it for a lengthy period) and I'm used to cradling a monopod ready to use for the second situation. I doubt I'll be sitting in a hide waiting for animals to appear

I'm sure there's an advantage to using a tripod for wildlife in my situation that's glaringly obvious that I've missed - feel free to point any advantages I've missed out?
 
Last edited:
Personally, for wildlife I feel that a tripod is rarely necessary for the case of keeping things sharp. If you're shooting in low light, then yes you should.

But, the only real benefit to using a tripod (in most situations and my personal opinion) is assisting with composition. It removes the natural sway from handholding, and allows you to create the perfect composition. If you're shooting wildlife, your shutter speed is probably fast enough to hand hold (unless in low light situations).
 
Personally I would suggest that a tripod is essential with the "big Whites". You certainly don't need one all the time but if you are waiting for subjects to approach then they are a godsend. Much as I like my mono pods they are a pain as you always have to keep at least one hand on them - how do I pour my Tea?!

I think that you are on the right track when thinking about a Gitzo tripod, though I don't know what brand of Gimbal head you are thinking of - personally I use a Wimberley 2. Unfortunately Gitzos and Wimberleys are a bit scary when it comes to new prices! Keep an eye on the used market as I have had some bargains there. A while back I picked up a used Gitzo G1329 Mk2 (fine for my 800 F5.6 L IS) and, from another source, a Wimberley 2 - £300 and £15 in petrol for the lot. These days the bargains are not so frequent, but they do come up. Somebody got a great tripod at very sensible money the day before yesterday:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GITZO-G1...=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
 
Personally I would suggest that a tripod is essential with the "big Whites". You certainly don't need one all the time but if you are waiting for subjects to approach then they are a godsend. Much as I like my mono pods they are a pain as you always have to keep at least one hand on them - how do I pour my Tea?!

I tend to agree with this.

a Wimberley 2 - £300 and £15 in petrol for the lot. These days the bargains are not so frequent, but they do come up. Somebody got a great tripod at very sensible money the day before yesterday:

Last two sold on here went for around £200 :)
 
I'm sure there's an advantage to using a tripod for wildlife in my situation that's glaringly obvious that I've missed - feel free to point any advantages I've missed out?
How old are you? I am now at the point where I can not hold my camera and long lens steady. I am OK for a single shot and then need to rest my arms to get the next steady shot. Carrying a tripod is a pain (literally) but once put up, I can get as many rock steady shots as I could possibly want.
 
How old are you? I am now at the point where I can not hold my camera and long lens steady. I am OK for a single shot and then need to rest my arms to get the next steady shot. Carrying a tripod is a pain (literally) but once put up, I can get as many rock steady shots as I could possibly want.

I'm 60 but I can shoot a burst of shots hand held with a 1dx and 400 2.8 without too much of a problem.

Thanks to everyone for the replies - This time last week I was convinced I was going to purchase a tripod and gimbal but I'm veering more towards using my monopod - If I was going to be sitting in one spot for a long time waiting on an animal to appear - or if I was mainly going to try to shoot birds in flight then I'd very much go for the tripod route. But I just don't think I'd use it enough to justify it.

I'm used to carting a 400mm and monopod around (I walked 14 miles with it on the last day of the open golf championship this year) and in Yellowstone I'll be mainly photographing large mammals, bears, moose, elk etc. I can't think of a single time I missed having a tripod on my last trip. There might be times in Scotland where I'd benefit from using a tripod but I've pretty much convinced myself now that I don't need one.

Thanks for your help
 
Personally I use my kit 90 per cent or more handheld and always done it more or less that way, only using a tripod in an hide if needed. With that said my kit is a little lighter than others with the " big whites ", I have a mk2 400mm DO which is easy to use handheld on either my 7D2 or 5D4, I can see where their would be a use for a tripod/monopod on a 400mm f/2.8 though
 
Dave you are an out an out pro and a fit one for your age !!I think for you the sit and wait, aspect is really the key to you possibly needing a tripod,. You are very very used to using a damn big heavy lens,but as a no nothing i'd gamble the down time between making an image would be on avaerage longer with wildlife than sport. You might not want yourself physically attached to the rig for those long periods of downtime. The tripod might allow much quicker readyness than a put down mono pod?? Beyond that with your skillset,i'm stumped.

I also use that tiny light 400 DO Martin above speaks of above. I utterly hand hold David,have experimented with a tiny hi hat I stalk......,tripods get in the way for me. But I still want a BIG :D gitzo at some stage.

It's the waiting game. it can be hours David.............. it's nice to be free of the rig ............ANY RIG in those hours ..............and yet be able to react to something in seconds is desparately important. So much depends on how you will tackle wildlife image making. personally. your subjects may well dictate this.

kiddo:), 60 years old hand holding a 400 2.8 man that's so cool :cool: I reckon that would kill me :LOL::LOL::LOL: I

I only own a hi hat tripod and Rob's little lensmaster gimbal i'm not driven to spend dosh on a " proper" tripod but I know I will one day It's part of a tool kit Dave simply as. !! It WILL be of use, it's a given. Just ,how much "a need" is simply down to what and how you want to approach all this.

have fun.

stu
 
Back
Top