Funny Article - Tripods are pointless when shooting digital

[bdavis]

Found this just now, this guy apparently thinks tripods are pointless when shooting digital

Digital Killed My Tripod

 

[dEARlEADER]

lol...... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

 

[bdavis]

In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.

 

[dEARlEADER]

In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.

but you can at that focal range... especially since he admits to firing off a lot of exposures.... he might get a good one every four frames....

 

[Big Mike]

Maybe he needs one of those new 'Digital Tripods' :roll:

 

[Overread14 2]

is it me or has Ken's site got more adds on it now than it ever had in the past?

as for the guy and that article its well debated that its a load of rubbish. There are some good points in it, but its overall presentation and wording mean that you have to know the good points before you read it - making it generally poor reading for a newer photographer and rather pointless reading for those that know what they are on about.
The writer has made some good articles, but his style of writing and general content are written from a very "my way is the best and only way that matters" angle which means that his all sweeping comments and statments fall apart when other shooting methods, users, kit and conditions are taken into consideration

 

[epp_b]

Oh, jeez, not again...

Some of his site can be read semi-seriously, but he's starting to sound more and more like a cranky old technophobe who thinks digitals are for talentless snapshooters and geeks.

Unless you have a BS meter tuned as finely as space shuttle instrumentation or are you a geek who actually thinks that good photos come from expensive cameras, keep away from this guy's site. If you are a good photographer and artist, you already know better. For the most part, he's so full of crap, it comes out of more places than just is rectum.

Alternatively, read this one instead, it's a lot more entertaining

In the article he claims to walk around new york snapping tack-sharp night shots while hand holding the camera at 1/15 sec....sorry but no.

OK, I'll defend him a little bit here: Keep in mind that "sharp" does not mean "no motion blur", it means "no camera shake". This is certainly possible with normal to wide angles. IS/VR will also help if you're shooting still subjects or if you want motion blur.

Here's a photo I took recently at 1/10th, ISO 800, f/3.8, effective 33mm, no IS/VR:



I braced myself by squatting down into a ball and holding my breath.

Here's where my defense ends: as for the claim that tripods are obsolete? Bull cookies. OK, Captain Ken, try getting these with no tripod:





I'd be really interested in what technique you use to hand-hold your camera perfectly still for three minutes, let alone three seconds.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Here's where my defense ends: as for the claim that tripods are obsolete? Bull cookies. OK, Captain Ken, try getting these with no tripod:




I'd be really interested in what technique you use to hand-hold your camera perfectly still for three minutes, let alone three seconds.

Your reading is selective... he advises to bring out the tripod for night shots...

 

[bdavis]

but you can at that focal range... especially since he admits to firing off a lot of exposures.... he might get a good one every four frames....

Agreed, it is possible to do that with a burst of shots, but I guess my thinking is that I would rather set up a tripod and know that my camera was steady rather than to get home to edit the photos and realize that I have a series of blurry shots.

Granted, his article made some good points. Sure lenses are getting better and better and with the wide apertures and ISO noise reduction, you can crank out some decent shots. However, to say that they are completely obsolete is a load of crap.

He actually said they degrade sharpness....which is one of the most controversial statements I have ever heard. He also says to take a shot on a tripod at f/22, and take a shot from your hand at f/8 and the second shot would be sharper...doesn't the sharpness fall off anyways at around f/16 or so? Not a fair test. I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens when it's zoomed into the 200-400mm range, sorry but I dont think any amount of VR/IS will help you as much as a solid tripod would!

 

[dEARlEADER]

Agreed, it is possible to do that with a burst of shots, but I guess my thinking is that I would rather set up a tripod and know that my camera was steady rather than to get home to edit the photos and realize that I have a series of blurry shots.

Yes.... but while you are dithering with your tripod he has taken a couple of hundred exposures from all sorts of different perspectives including some places where you can't set up your tripod... like a ledge... or a bench.. etc..

Granted, his article made some good points. Sure lenses are getting better and better and with the wide apertures and ISO noise reduction, you can crank out some decent shots. However, to say that they are completely obsolete is a load of crap.

Exactly... Ken will make a few noteworthy points and follow it up with a sweeping generalization.... His job is to get read.... Maybe it's working don't ya think?

I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens when it's zoomed into the 200-400mm range, sorry but I dont think any amount of VR/IS will help you as much as a solid tripod would!

Ken Rockwell is a landscaper... they GENERALLY shoot wide.... most if not all of Ken's theories come from a landscaping perspective... that's what he does..


Look... I'm pretty much wasting my time on this because nothing is happening at work... I'll read Ken once every month or two like how someone reads the comics while on the crapper...

Ken Rockwells target audience are not the people that further educate themselves on forums like these...

Ken pontificates to the masses of amateur "Joe Photographers" who never get past the butt sniffing stage in photography...

trust me.... there are a lot more D40's out there in Auto than AP or manual.... these are the people that he services... and they love him...

 

[Garbz]

I read about 3 sentences randomly from the article. One said ISO1600, one kinda made sense, then at the bottom he suggested trying to see if a tripod at f/22 is sharper than non tripod at f/8. Sorry what the hell does diffraction related sharpness issues which you will get at f/22 have to do with a tripod? I wish this was china so we could censor some of his bull****.

 

[bdavis]

Yes.... but while you are dithering with your tripod he has taken a couple of hundred exposures from all sorts of different perspectives including some places where you can't set up your tripod... like a ledge... or a bench.. etc..

True, but there are also places that dont have ledges or benches in which case a tripod would come in handy.

Ken Rockwell is a landscaper... they GENERALLY shoot wide.... most if not all of Ken's theories come from a landscaping perspective... that's what he does..

I realize this, but he said there was really no use for a tripod, not that there was no use for one in landscape photography. There probably isnt a need for one in landscape photography, but if you were shooting sports with a long zoom, you might need one.

Look... I'm pretty much wasting my time on this because nothing is happening at work... I'll read Ken once every month or two like how someone reads the comics while on the crapper...

Ken Rockwells target audience are not the people that further educate themselves on forums like these...

Ken pontificates to the masses of amateur "Joe Photographers" who never get past the butt sniffing stage in photography...

trust me.... there are a lot more D40's out there in Auto than AP or manual.... these are the people that he services... and they love him...

Sadly you're right....

I'm not trying to argue, just debate a controversial topic and make a few good points. I normally wouldn't do this, but I'm bored at work as well, so what can ya do?

 

[dEARlEADER]

. Sorry what the hell does diffraction related sharpness issues which you will get at f/22 have to do with a tripod? I wish this was china so we could censor some of his bull****.

Because his fan base are sending him tripod stabilized images at F22 that aren't sharp and asking him why?

Joe photographer thinks that smaller apertures create sharper images. Joe photographer thinks smaller apertures require longer shutter speeds which necessitate the use of a tripod....

 

[Overread14 2]

?? so because Joe is not after an indepth answer he should be given incorrect answers?
I can understand encouraging those with a lesser interest into areas or using methods that are better suited to their shooting style, but not when you do so by giving over incorrect information. That just hampers any hopes later on when Joe might want to learn more.

 

[dEARlEADER]

?? so because Joe is not after an indepth answer he should be given incorrect answers?
I can understand encouraging those with a lesser interest into areas or using methods that are better suited to their shooting style, but not when you do so by giving over incorrect information. That just hampers any hopes later on when Joe might want to learn more.

Don't tell me this..... tell Joe this.... I'm just an observer....

but FWIW... I hardly think it's misinformation to express that todays technology permits much more accessibility pertaining to hand held shooting..

Joe is mostly like armed with an image stabilized 18-55 and a DLSR that will give him decent shots at ISO800...... he is most likely taking pictures at his daughters 3rd birthday party using gawd awful pop up flash.... AND GUESS WHAT?....... HE DOESN'T NEED A TRIPOD!!!!!!!!