Perhaps no accessory is more strongly associated with landscape photography than the tripod, and for good reason. That being said, some photographers insist on using them for every shot, no matter the circumstances. Can that actually be a hindrance? This great video dives into the use of tripods in landscape photography and why sometimes, it is better to just hold your camera.
Coming to you from James Popsys, this interesting video discusses the use of tripods in landscape photography and why sometimes, it is better to go without them. I generally agree with Popsys. This is not to say that tripods are not a worthwhile tool; they are tremendously useful and a necessity for many different shots. However, if you are photographing with plenty of available light and not doing something special like a long exposure, do you really need one? And if you do not, would you be better off freeing yourself from the logistical burden of lugging it around and moving and readjusting it for every new image? Arguably, you can take more (and possibly better photos) if you stick to just holding your camera. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Popsys.
And if you really want to dive into landscape photography, check out "Photographing The World 1: Landscape Photography and Post-Processing with Elia Locardi."
I use tripods as kind of a hybrid solution to framing and stabilization. On location, I open the tripod to the desired height and rest my hand with the camera body on top of the tripod head. I can shoot down to about 1/4 second. This allows me to properly frame the image without worrying about stabilizing my body. My wife always tells me I can't do 2 things at once. (Humer but true.) This also allows me to quickly move the camera in case I want to shoot at a different angle. Anything slower than 1/4 second like a waterfall, I attach the camera to the tripod.
How about using a monopod instead? it can also be used as a walking stick when walking in rough terrain.
I suspect that most serious landscape photographers will insist upon a tripod for absolute stability, maximizing the potential resolution from a high MP sensor, and of course maintaining the exact perspective for shots requiring multiple exposures - focus stacking, pixel shift, and HDR.
For the rest of us imposters, it’s still nice to have a highly portable tripod for the rare occasion we might like to do a long exposure, self portraits, or to lock perspective at an otherwise uncomfortable angle.
I always take a tripod. It’s not just for low light shots. Focus stacking and perfecting your composition. James popsys more of an insta guy than a landscape photographer
We rated them at the last photographers meeting. You weren't there.
Why I hate lazy people who is trying to make excuses for their actions. First of all he doesn't know how to use tripod and secondly forget about peak design tripod... Get gizo and self leveling central column or ball head with that function. I've watched the video just about to the point where he is trying to shoot the leaves falling into the frame. He doesn't even know how to shoot that from tripod! 🙈
So much effort went into good quality video with really useless content.
Every 7th video James does, he mentions how much he hates tripods. I hate carrying them too. But…as soon as you inspect your handheld shots closely you can see how slight amounts of motion blur affects sharpness.
The one caveat to that is the newer sensors can shoot at higher ISO handheld without as much noise but as soon as you require noise reduction you're right back to a compromised image.
It's so true, especially at longer focal lengths - truly painful to zoom in and see what could have been a much sharper image.
I use mine for low light mostly, but they have other uses, like bracketing. You don't always need a big tripod either. I shoot a Ricoh GR III most days, and make do with a little one that I can just stand on things if I need more height.