Do I really need a tripod?

[Walrus]

I've arrived at somewhat of a conundrum. I'll be relocating in a few months for which I will be purchasing the Lowepro Photo Hatchback AW to carry my camera gear, water bottle (due to the consistently hot climate), tablet, and odds and ends. The bag is perfect for my current needs, aside from one aspect.

I'd like to take some wildlife pictures (birds, animals at the zoo, etc.), but I'd also like to take some landscape/cityscape photos as well. I'm wondering if, to optimize the latter, I would need to invest in a tripod. If the lens has IS and I can level the camera on my own, do I really need one? Not only can a tripod be an expensive purchase, it is cumbersome and the aforesaid bag simply won't hold it. The bag includes pouches on its sides which could technically hold one, but nothing with which to strap it down.

So, I ask: Do I really need a tripod in order to take decent landscape/cityscape photos when my lenses have IS?

 

[ronlane]

It depends on what type of lighting you have. If you are shooting at 1/100 of a second or faster, No you don't NEED a tripod.

A tripod will help with sharper focus and help to minimize the camera shake. It will allow you to take longer exposure landscape/cityscapes.

I bought a Vanguard Alta+ 234AP and replaced the head with an SBH-100 ballhead. It come with a case with a sling on it that I could carry over my shoulder on my back.

 

[lambertpix]

In my opinion, a tripod is a must-have. Some of the most dramatic lighting conditions (especially for landscapes) are those near the beginning and end of the day, and even with an IS lens, you'll want the extra stability of a tripod.

I understand that weight might be an issue, and there are some other lightweight alternatives that you could consider (ex: GorillaPod), but personally, I'd want to have a decent tripod if it's remotely feasible. FWIW, I've taken a couple of 10-day camping trips in which a tripod was really pushing it for me in terms of gear, and I used a TrekPod on both of these trips because it could do double duty as a trekking pole. Obviously, it was nowhere near as effective as a real tripod, but it was lots better than nothing at all.

A final thought: upon re-reading your OP, it sounds like you're basing your decision to buy or not buy a tripod (at least in part) based on the ability of your chosen camera bag to carry one. I understand that's only one of your considerations, but it seems like you might just be putting the cart before the horse on that one, so to speak. Just a thought.....

 

[tirediron]

You don't need one, no. Eventually however there will come an occasion where you will be willing to sell your soul in exchange for one!

 

[table1349]

Depends, think you are steady enough to hand capture something like this?
http://wallpapersus.com/wp-content/...ature-ocean-peaceful-rocks-sea-sky-stones.jpg

 

[3Js]

Nobody wants to carry a tripod anymore and thanks to digital cameras, it is not an absolute necessity for most people. Except for some shots like a cityscape at night. Or an all day wait for some rare animal that is not going to get close enough to use a 50mm lens...

 

[Overread18 6]

If you're shooting wildlife and you're going to spend any time sitting in a hide waiting - you want a tripod. Because otherwise IS or no by the time it appears you'll be exhausted from just holding the camera that you might not even notice it (because you'll be thinking of the nice end of the day when you can put the camera down and relax).

 

[bribrius]

i had a similar issue, i have a tripod but hate to use it. Aside from setting the camera on things to use for a camera stand, other members suggested a clamp to me to clamp the camera on things. im going to go that route. smaller, easier to carry. quick setup and does the job (though not as well).

 

[3Js]

...other members suggested a clamp

The clamp is a pretty good alternative but no more than that. You need something solid to clamp it to, lol.

 

[Derrel]

A tripod is not a necessity for many types of work. Time exposures, slow-speed exposures, and things like that demand a firm and steady camera support, and a tripod is the easiest, most-direct way to create a firm, steady source of support for a camera/lens combo. There are many types of shots where no tripod is needed. There are some types of shots where a tripod is surely the best and most-logical way to support the camera. When you have a tripod available, you have the FULL RANGE of exposure and shooting options open to you; without a tripod, you have to settle for different ways to shoot, like using IS and faster speeds, or looking for what are called found supports, like benches, table, ledges, and other places where the camera can be placed, or clamped to.

I think carrying one's tripod lashed to the backpack is, typically, kind of a PITA. I prefer a soft,lightweight case with a strap, or a simple rifle-type sling.

 

[HitenNainaney]

It definately isn't a necessity, but I'd rather have one just incase I'd need one.

I'd hate to find myself in a position where I'm needing a tripod, and just dont have one.

As a rule of thumb, my tripod goes where my camera does, regardless of my requirement.

But I'm told I'm a bit too anal about it.



Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Walrus]

Thanks for your input, everyone. In light of this prospective purchase, the camera bag is but one of my considerations. The tripod might be cumbersome, but I don't want to be without a necessary piece of equipment.

With that being said, I'm contemplating the Manfrotto 293 Tripod with 494RC2 Quick Release MK293A4-A0RC2 B&H. It is both lightweight and compact, and has garnered positive feedback aplenty. Thoughts?

 

[Gavjenks]

Camera stabilization is absolutely a necessity for certain types of shots, namely necessarily long exposures (star trails, blurred moving water or clouds, action shots wher eyou want a trail of where the person has been, etc.), or extremely low light on the sensor (either due to being in inky blackness, or due to something like using a pinhole lens), or if you're going to be sitting in one place for awhile even without long exposure (like timelapses or shooting the same shot in different ways, or HDR, or an animal blind as mentioned)

However,
1) If you don't shoot any long exposures, or take photos with pinholes or in inky blackness, then what do you care?
2) A regular full sized tripod is not the only means of camera stabilization. You can also just lay your camera on a cement block or fencepost or similar in many situations, or use a lightweight beanbag filled with polystyrene balls as a step up from that, or use a mini tripod like a gorillapod (which can be a normal small tripod or can wrap grip to branches and things), or the military trench tool-resembling ultrapod (which straps to tree branches), or a DIY modified gorillapod or whatever where you add straps and thus let it be usable as a wrap, a stand, or a strap based support, or a monopod, or a ballhead that can attach to a crampon if you're a mountain climber, or a pole with guy wires and tent stakes, or 30 bazillion other possible things that might fit in your bag unlike a normal tripod.

 

[vimwiz]

If you are shooting wildlife, you will be going telephoto, right?

Ive got a (non-L) 75-300mm lens with IS and at the long end, I need 1/250 to avoid shake. Therefore I reccomend a *light/small* tripod. I have one that I can clip onto my rucksack, takes up no more roon than a water bottle, and is good enough, its also got a strap.

P.S depends on camera

With the tank in my pic <<<<< I can shoot similarly long and slow non-IS lenses much better handheld than on my low end DSLR, I guess the weight helps?

 

[Gavjenks]

I do wish there were a more robust version of this available, though, since I don't want to build one:
Amazon.com: Pedco UltraPod II Lightweight Camera Tripod: Sports & Outdoors

IMO the ultimate field expedient tripod that would justify bringing it along even when I'm not sure I will need a tripod would be that, but:
* Made out of higher end materials like magnesium, or composite plastic and aluminum or something.
* Better joints that don't flex so much like those do and that are better in general than a single plain rivet.
* A beefier joint connection with the ability to use any ball head you want, not just their fairly crappy plastic one.
* Two and larger straps. One strap = not enough degrees of freedom of movement constrained when the surface is flat.

But alas, nothing like that exists (yet) from any company I can find, and I don't have access to the shop tools I need.