Can you say that night time photography is still a challenge for cameras of today. Imagine using a camera and taking a shot less than a second in poor lighting and producing a beautiful picture like in the day time.
You know how some cameras are really top of the line and the lens cost as much as the camera itself but the question is do they really produce better pictures?
With that said, if you have a shot of the scene hand held and it's 'perfectly' sharp, using the same settings, on a tripod, it won't make a difference.
I'm pretty sure you have read about tripods and stuffs, what's left now is for you to explore what the tripod/support does for you.
Crap shot with better equipment is still crap, just maybe sharper/cleaner crap..
Tripod or no tripod. It is a decision you have to make at the point in time when taking the photo.
Everything you know (or don't know) about photography is about decisions:
1. decision on how to compose the scene.
2. decision on what is the end product (picture) in your mind.
3. decision on what exposure parameters to use.
4. decision on what gear to use (what camera, what lens, what other accessories, tripod or not, etc)
5. decision on how to PP the shot to attain that vision you have in #2.
The rest is just execution.
I shoot a lot of night shots handheld with fast f1.4 lenses wide open. Typical exposure is 1/30 ISO3200. The noise is noticeable although details still quite sharp with bracing against a wall, lamp post, etc. However the same scene shot on a tripod at ISO400, f2 at 1/4 looks better, sharper, any time.
Another option is to get the Sony A7S, the current low light champ with one of the top Zeiss lenses. Its ISO3200 is like an ISO400 of more usual cameras. But it will cost $7k upwards.
Everything is a compromise due to law of nature, equipment. You have to decide. No free lunch unfortunately.
Errr if 3 legs troublesome, how about 1 leg one??? Shouldn't be too troublesome to use the monopod right....... Not better than tripod but at least better than hand holding at low shutter speed....
you can use a light and portable bean bag or even a mini tripod well supported by other stuff.
I had even used my dinner of murtabak as a support before. It was a delicious camera Stand.
anyway that being said, thread starter had on previous occasions asked this same question and has been presently receiving the same advice.
I suggest members don't waste your time on someone who is an ask hole. ask for help but dumped all answers into bottomless hole!
Maybe determine shake factor first...the slowest shutter speed you can hand hold without degradation of image (slow shutter speed lets in more of the available light)...at widest aperture possible with lens being used at a reasonably clean ISO. If you can't get the shot then you need an upgrade bodywise assuming you are using decent glass. This is very basic fundamental stuff.
I guess night time scenes are a big thing now...faddish kind of imo. Although all of the casinos in SP might make for some interesting night time pictures.
FYI, TS is not referring to shooting events or street photos at night, which shooting high ISO is a norm, so please check out what type of shots he specialise with, so you can know what kind relevance suggestions you can offer to him.
Golden brahma statue
Circular shaped block of flats and carpark at night
outrageous bright orange!!!
MBS and helix bridge
Clarke quay along singapore river at night
vivocity and harbourfront
guardians under the yellow night
[Soulblade88 ] The Best of random SNAP
There should be challenges in photography. How then would we improve or get satisfaction if there are no challenges.
Which leads me to the top of the line gear bit. Without a doubt, in the mind of someone who knows his craft enough, average gear can give you great shots within it's capability. For top of the line gear, not only can do the same but you have MORE OPTIONS doing it. That's the only difference.
And it all depends on the person who owns the gear. What's the use of thinking about what future gear can do that the gear you are holding in your hand can't at the time you are shooting? It's like you never prepare for your examination and sitting at the desk staring clueless at your test sheet thinking what if the future have a computer chip that can input answers to your head. How would that effect my test score hahahah. That "what if" syndrome.
At any one time while you take a photo you are always confronted with many variables at play you have to consider before you press the shutter button. Experiences is your only dependable 'today' tool that ultimately decide if you get the best possible end result photo influence by how you dealt with those variables at play. As the saying goes, a good carpenter does not blame his tools. For sure compromises will have to be made but that's life.
Photography is almost like fishing to me. Some days you get "selar" another day I get a "red snapper" ! But at least I caught something for how. I just have to keep fishing.
A good photo's 45% you, 45% practice & 10% equipment. A bad photo share the same ratio.
Some time, it is not if you have the time to take your camera up and shoot. It is all about how you plan your shot... looked at your surrounding, decide on what you want to shoot, think and then see how you can achieve that shot. If low ISO is what is needed and you need to shoot at low speed, while don't have a tripod with you, then look for something sturdy and rest your camera as best as you can on that object then shoot. If nothing was there, then forget about shooting. And if someone is hushing you alone, then don't shoot.
Simple as that.
I remember shooting night scene with nothing but my Nokia handphone, of course my standard is nowhere near the experts here like Catchlight and Daredevil, but I think it is passable, and I didn't have my tripod with me too.
So... even I can achieve such clarity and standard, I don't see any problem anyone cannot get the result or even surpassing it with or without a tripod.
Of course if you don't have the right tools to take a shot, doesn't matter what expensive camera you have, it is irrelevant. If resultant crappy shots are about the same as someone's D4 and 14-24 f/2.8 because both of you don't use a tripod, and you think that justifies your not using a tripod, good for you, I prefer to make sure that I get the shots I want out of my equipment, expensive or cheap. A decent enough tripod doesn't cost much in relation to any camera, FYI.
I was looking at your thread linked by Catchlights, I would say listen to the advises that many had given to u in your thread.
Your photos still has room for improvement IMO and most of the shots seemed to be a planned outing shots so there are no excuses for this and that if u want improvement. I know many people wants short cut especially as light as possible,then good luck.If u still insists on your current style of photography,then just accept what the outcome is.
However,one good thing is that u are moving in a right direction of keep shooting but without improving or changing is not getting u anywhere.
And lastly,at this stage don't even think of upgrading yet until u know what is limiting u and naturally u will know what u need.
That said, TS, in life there are norms and ways we behave that in some cases set us apart from others. In this case, people may react badly to you, maybe it is also good to do some soul searching and look at what you have said to see if you do actually invite some bad responses?