View Poll Results: handheld or use tripod for macro shots?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • Handheld

    41 36.28%
  • Tripod

    72 63.72%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 89

Thread: Tripod or handheld for macro?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In my own world
    Posts
    1,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    Hey I saw those birdie threads and the fellas have camouflage tents and minimum 400 or 600mm telephotos. I don't think it is quite possible to shoot without tripod in those cases. But then again it's not macro

    I know someone with a Nikkor 800VR, that thing looks like an 84mm Carl Gustav. Either you use a tripod (and a real sturdy one) or you need a PA to carry it on his shoulders!
    ha! That will be super-overkill for macro shooting...Think a 50mm or 90mm should be sufficient to do the job...

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b18
    One that was displayed publicly was at http://www.forumkamera.com/gallery/img2621.search.html

    This thread getting more n more interesting .. esp I never use my monopod for macro shots thinking its not feasible
    can't see anything?

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    ha! That will be super-overkill for macro shooting...Think a 50mm or 90mm should be sufficient to do the job...
    no lah that one not a macro lens, he bought it to shoot birds. man, the D2H attached to it look like a toy nearly fell down when I saw the lens, then I fainted when I heard the price.

  4. #64

    Default

    I think we all have said a lot and perhaps let this thread rest. I have re-read all the posts, and this is my feeling on the issue of macro +/- tripod.

    THE DEFINITION of MACRO-PHOTOGRAPHY

    Macro photography (see books on it, they are available everywhere!) implies taking CLOSE-UP shots of small things. It will mean that you will need to have a lens (or with close up attachments) capable of a reasonable magnification ( I will not talk about ratios because some people appear to be upset by "theories"). So, if you take a picture of an average orchid flower, the flower should more or less fill the frame. If you take a picture of a dragon fly with a 50 mm macro lens from about 5 feet away, the dragon fly will only occupy a small section of the frame. If you enlarge the dragon fly or zoom it digitally, this is not macro photography. This is enlargement and cropping.

    So taking pictures of small things per se does not equal macro photography.

    I am sorry that we could not learn how to take a picture of a 4mm object from 2cm away, handheld, from Mr Choy. Certainly I can't! With my lenses, (please pardon me, but these are some of the best 35 and MF macro lenses around), I can only manage a smallest size of 300 mm. I am not able to hold my focus at this close range. At such range (about 10 cm away from the object) for my lenses I was so wobbly! With flashes I could freeze movement, but I am not sure if I could get things in focus. I can with my 180 mm canon take a reasonable dragon fly some distance away with autofocus and under good light. Even so, I do not trust my handholding ability with such a long lens. So I am really fascinated that Mr Choy had developed a technique to take shots of 4 mm objects at 2cm range and sharp! If the fishes (?avatar) are photographed while swiming in a tank, unless the fish swims scrapping the glass, the object (the fish) will likely be more than 2 cm away, unless there is a special design tank which force the fish to swim in a 4 mm canal!

    Well, maybe one day I might figure this out!

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    Hey I saw those birdie threads and the fellas have camouflage tents and minimum 400 or 600mm telephotos. I don't think it is quite possible to shoot without tripod in those cases. But then again it's not macro

    I know someone with a Nikkor 800VR, that thing looks like an 84mm Carl Gustav. Either you use a tripod (and a real sturdy one) or you need a PA to carry it on his shoulders!
    800VR? huh? Nikon has such a lens ah?

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    mmm… I thought I heard him said VR but definitely 800mm. From what I remember of the shape of the lens, it should be the f5.6 version seen here.

    we OT liaoz.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b18
    One that was displayed publicly was at http://www.forumkamera.com/gallery/img2621.search.html

    This thread getting more n more interesting .. esp I never use my monopod for macro shots thinking its not feasible
    OK. Now I can see it. Very nice. But I still don't understand why it is necessary to use cable release. can enlighten please?

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    If you think "technical mambo jumbo" are not necessary, it is your perogative. I am sorry.
    apology accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    I do not know of any competent artisan who does not have mastery of the tecnical aspect of his craft.
    then u know too little...

    dude... as i have said... relax abit lah.... y so defensive? read the entire thread again, do u notice every time people reply to your posts, u have something to say to them back? its as if u cannot be wrong....

    i think everyone here will gladly let u win in this arguement just to shout u up...
    as said, this will be my last post in this thread.

    waste time....
    web | blog | fb | ig

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EiRiK
    waste time....
    don'ch kan cheong, relak one corner lah. we just talk about the macro we understand ok liaoz. what about your pics huh? show us some.

    but Mr. Megaweb is here, very pressurised

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EiRiK
    waste time....
    You now make sense! WASTE TIME!

    If people cannot debate on facts (theories)...Sigh! If one cannot "win" on points put forth, and then side step the arguments, resorts to challenges, and then accuse the other of, well, always wanting to win.......

    "HE WHO KNOWS NOT HE KNOWS NOT, SHUN HIM"

    "HE WHO KNOWS NOT AND BOH CHAP! WELL............."

    I am not here to win. I don't have to! As far as I am concern, I am beyond such petty childishness! This idea of having to win is SOOOO..... I dread to write what is in my mind...

    I had written in my last post that I think a problem with the so called controversy is a difference in understanding of the word "MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY".

    Someone suggested a poll to find out what members think. If the question is "what do you understand about macrophotography" it is perfectly fine. If the question is "Define macrophotography". Then, well. The definition is already there. And no amount of agreement in this forum or out of this forum will make any darn difference.

    I will reaffirm my position that there is NO artist who works is "OF ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD" who has not mastered the techniques and the undertanding and use of his tools. Of course we again can debate the phrase "OF ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD".

    We can start to ask ourselves "IS OUR PHOTOS OF ANY MEANGINFUL STANDARD". In case you have difficulty understanding this, it does not mean of no importance to YOU. They may be your most treasured photos and possession. But are they of "ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD".

    "STANDARD AS DETERMINED BY A BODY OF COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS CURATORS, ETC", not by........................

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    wow cool so many discussion happened and guys pls relax.. i think my poll didn't give enough details, what i was thinking was shooting insects (at least 2cm or smaller), so due to the composition and lighting wise, i wonder is tripod really helpful. because everytime i tried to setup tripod etc everything, then the insects gone...

    I can't deny that due to the super shallow DOF, it's extremely hard to get a sharp (at right place) and enuf DOF shots. I read up azone macro articles b4 and I quite agree on the way he mentioned. to me, shooting insects usually i try to handheld or use monopod with fast shuttle speed, as setting up tripod doesn't really make sense to me.

    this was my try i think a yr ago using handheld:
    http://www.cwphotography.net/gallery....aspx?Photo=76

    again, i'm surprise megaweb replied in this thread, wow..

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chenwei
    this was my try i think a yr ago using handheld:
    http://www.cwphotography.net/gallery....aspx?Photo=76

    again, i'm surprise megaweb replied in this thread, wow..
    nice ant!

  13. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    801

    Default

    So if i use macro it is recommended that i use a tripod?

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    my answer would be: "if you can and the situation permits, by all means. otherwise try to use a monopod especially if you don't have good lights. however if you have no choice handheld is also an option."

  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    Hey I saw those birdie threads and the fellas have camouflage tents and minimum 400 or 600mm telephotos. I don't think it is quite possible to shoot without tripod in those cases. But then again it's not macro

    I know someone with a Nikkor 800VR, that thing looks like an 84mm Carl Gustav. Either you use a tripod (and a real sturdy one) or you need a PA to carry it on his shoulders!
    Yup those guys a die hard bird shooters. Seen them in action before. Awesome. It takes dedication and perserverance.

  16. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchoy
    OK. Now I can see it. Very nice. But I still don't understand why it is necessary to use cable release. can enlighten please?
    I think he use cable release just to ensure there is minimal camera shake. Maybe his shutter speed is slow.

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chenwei
    wow cool so many discussion happened and guys pls relax.. i think my poll didn't give enough details, what i was thinking was shooting insects (at least 2cm or smaller), so due to the composition and lighting wise, i wonder is tripod really helpful. because everytime i tried to setup tripod etc everything, then the insects gone...

    I can't deny that due to the super shallow DOF, it's extremely hard to get a sharp (at right place) and enuf DOF shots. I read up azone macro articles b4 and I quite agree on the way he mentioned. to me, shooting insects usually i try to handheld or use monopod with fast shuttle speed, as setting up tripod doesn't really make sense to me.

    this was my try i think a yr ago using handheld:
    http://www.cwphotography.net/gallery....aspx?Photo=76

    again, i'm surprise megaweb replied in this thread, wow..
    Nice shot of the ant.

  18. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Tripod or handheld for macro?

    I'll handheld for macro. Tripod takes too much time to setup.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  19. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    1.45N 103.83E
    Posts
    3,202

    Default Re: Tripod or handheld for macro?

    handhelds work best for me with my Tamron 90mmf2.8 lens. Tripod is too troublesome. and before i set it up, the insect will be gone.


    Pratice makes perfect.

  20. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Tripod or handheld for macro?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeSwitch View Post
    handhelds work best for me with my Tamron 90mmf2.8 lens. Tripod is too troublesome. and before i set it up, the insect will be gone.


    Pratice makes perfect.
    I second that.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •