Landscape photography: the point of using a tripod?

[anubis404]

Exactly, I used to go on multi-day backpacking trips and carry a Nikon D70 plus a bronica Etrsi along with a tripod. I guess as has been said it all depends on what is important to you, a tripod is essential to high quality landscape images. I have no problem though having the hike be more important to you than good images but a tripod is not really that heavy adn all you have to do with it if you are carrying a regular backpack is out it on top and close the cover on it and move out.

Both are equally important. When hiking up steep slopes for hours up a 5000 foot+ mountain, all while carrying a days worth of food, 2 liters of water (minimum), and medical supplies in California heat is not an easy task. Even though I try to exercise regularly, I am in by no means Schwarzenegger-shape. Keeping this in mind, I do not take kindly to being criticized for carrying something that is not going to make a huge difference. My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.

 

[Josh66]

I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic (I'm going to assume that it was not)...

Yes, I am. A tripod does not weigh that much. With all the other gear I would typically be carrying on a hiking trip, I don't think I would even notice the added weight of a tripod. With a good pack you should be able to carry at least half of your body weight.

Yeah, that's a lot of stuff.

I don't usually carry that much (that would be an 80 lb. load for me), but I have, and I would if I had to. A good pack makes things much more comfortable.

It depends on how long you're going to be out too...

 

[JerryPH]

...I do not take kindly to being criticized for carrying something that is not going to make a huge difference. My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.

Fast glass is not a fix for tilted horizons, nor can it hold a camera steady enough in a long arc to do proper panoramas, nor can it help you when it is time to take the EXACT same framed picture in 3 different exposure levels. It also is not a fix for longer shutter times, no matter what reason you need them (minor star trails, aurora borealis, etc...)

If none of the above is in your list of requirements for a pic while on that hike, then you don't need a tripod... however that panorama shot alone, IMHO is certainly worth the price of admission for carrying that tripod wherever.

And as mentioned, they aren't that heavy in the first place.

Of course, you are the one doing the lugging, so as far as I am concerned, since you are the one doing the carrying and you are the one that will have to live with your shots, you now know the pros and cons and should be able to make your own final decision and be happy with it.

 

[abraxas]

I know there is a joke in this thread, but I missed the punchline.

Ok. I get it now.

 

[anubis404]

I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic (I'm going to assume that it was not)...

Yes, I am. A tripod does not weigh that much. With all the other gear I would typically be carrying on a hiking trip, I don't think I would even notice the added weight of a tripod. With a good pack you should be able to carry at least half of your body weight.

Yeah, that's a lot of stuff.

I don't usually carry that much (that would be an 80 lb. load for me), but I have, and I would if I had to. A good pack makes things much more comfortable.

It depends on how long you're going to be out too...

My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.

 

[anubis404]

Fast glass is not a fix for tilted horizons, nor can it hold a camera steady enough in a long arc to do proper panoramas, nor can it help you when it is time to take the EXACT same framed picture in 3 different exposure levels. It also is not a fix for longer shutter times, no matter what reason you need them (minor star trails, aurora borealis, etc...)

Tilted horizons are an easy photoshop fix. As for panoramas and HDRs, tripod all the way.

If none of the above is in your list of requirements for a pic while on that hike, then you don't need a tripod... however that panorama shot alone, IMHO is certainly worth the price of admission for carrying that tripod wherever.

I never suggested that it wasn't.

Of course, you are the one doing the lugging, so as far as I am concerned, since you are the one doing the carrying and you are the one that will have to live with your shots, you now know the pros and cons and should be able to make your own final decision and be happy with it. ;-)

Holding the camera straight really isn't hard. Again, I'm sure a tripod has plenty of advantages. I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.

 

[BrandonS]

My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.

Just a suggestion. I went out shooting at the Zoo for a day with a buddy. We were using our tripods a lot and I always attatched mine with built in straps on the side of my bag. Pain in the butt to remove and put it back on all the time.

In any case, here's what I did. Just take your tripod. Flip it upside down and use the hook that's on it between the legs. The one used to put weight on it to make it more sturdy. Hook it around the top carry strap on your ba and let it hang down the back.

If your hiking on tough terrain this might not be ideal as it will tend to swing to the side, but for a simple hike or going around town it gets the job done.

I'm with most, as I would recommend taking one with you. It just opens more possibilities in the long run. I take mine with 95% of the time when I go out shooting. I took it hiking in death valley when I was shooting in the early afternoon and used it (and I can't say there wasn't ample light for hand holding). It helps me frame shots better because I slow down. Also when I was standing on loose shale fairly high up on a hill I felt a little more safe not holding my camera standing ackwardly to get a shot.

Oh and I used the method I mentioned for you to try when I carried it up the steep hills there and it worked fine for me so it's worth a shot.

 

[Wozza]

Maybe a monopod would be a good compramise? I'm sure you can get ones that can double as a staff?

 

[abraxas]

I have notice that a lot of landscape photographers are using tripods when they shoot. What's the point of this? Tripods add a lot of weight to your backpack. When hiking or climbing up high mountains, I strain myself with 2 lenses, a light body, the necessary food, medical, and other supplies. Unless doing a long exposure, I don't see how a straighter horizon (which could be easily done in PP) is worth carrying that much metal.

Can someone fill me in? Am I missing something?

...

Holding the camera straight really isn't hard. Again, I'm sure a tripod has plenty of advantages. I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.

You've went from landscape photography to "run of the mill daylight shots."

Why do you bother taking a DSLR anyway? It sounds like you are willing to settle for tilt, blur, and broad daylight shots. You could save some weight by taking a little tiny, frisky point and shoot. More room for candy and medical equipment.

 

[Jon_Are]

All posted by anubis404:

Tripods add a lot of weight to your backpack.

I don't see how a straighter horizon (which could be easily done in PP) is worth carrying that much metal.

I'd rather have the energy to hike further and take more picture of more places than take tripod pics.

The sensor of my camera body is 6MP. Things start to get a little iffy past 8X12. I never print that large anyway.

My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.

my tripod really is heavy.

Tilted horizons are an easy photoshop fix.

Holding the camera straight really isn't hard.

I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.

Then don't carry a tripod.

Next thread.

Jon

 

[GeneralBenson]

Hahahahahahaha. Thank you, Jon.

 

[andrew99]

Camera resolution is a factor. When I was shooting my D40 (6MP) I didn't really see much need for a tripid, unless shooting at night or long exposure, or HDR. But when I switched to a 12MP D300, suddenly a lot of my pictures were not that sharp. I guess more megapixels make the camera more prone to camera shake. So in this case, using a tripod does add a lot of sharpness.

 

[table1349]

I would have to agree, if you don't see a need for one then don't carry one. Experience it the greatest instructior of all.

As Mark Twain said “The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. If nothng else he learns never to carry a cat home by the tail again. But if he chooses to carry a cat home by the tail then I say let him. It's not as easy to be excentric these days as it used to be.”

 

[Josh66]

My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.

I'm sure with a few small straps you could figure out a way to attach it to your pack.

My pack doesn't have anything made specifically for holding a tripod, but there are plenty of ways to carry one with it.

 

[Bevel Heaven]

I love it when someone asks for opinions and then argues each.

Undecided? Bring a bean bag to set your camera on, or just one of those little 6" long mini pods and see if you actually want/need to use a larger tripod in the future.

Sounds like the answer is no.