Is a tripod a "MUST" for night photography??

[android17]

You might want to re-read(or check your sights as you suggested) what TS asked in the very first. She had asked specifically about the necessacity of a tripod because she was concerned about image quality, not alternatives to tripods. Get back on course.....

And i already mentioned for her to use a tripod. In none of my post have i ever said that IS is better than tripod. Since the beginning I have said time and again that IF there isnt a tripod available (due to situation or in places where its not possible to use one), then IS can still help to a certain extend.

And i dont see whats wrong with my idea of using handheld when no tripod is available. And apparently most people can accept that pictures dont hv to be perfectly sharp (just see the post before this and many others before).

Taking a picture consist of many meanings. It can be for memories' sake, or u see something significant, or just a moment in time that you wanna share with others. In these cases, the unavailable of a tripod becomes secondary. Sharpness is not a concern as long as the picture is good enough to be seen.

I dont see the need to change this way of thinking. And judging by the pictures here by other users as well as what they replied, i can see they do share the same idea as me.

 

[Kit]

did u use image stabilizer? It can help if ur shutter speed is not extremely slow.

You came in blabbering about IS to begin with.

if shooting night photography, u need a combination of stabilizer + ISO in order to use handheld shots. Im sure you already understand why ur pictures are blur. No choice, u hv to use tripod.

This is one reason why I advise people to get stabilizer in camera sensor instead of in lens. With sensor stabilizer, you will hv IS with wide angel lenses...

canon and nikon don wanna release IS on wide angle lenses, making them at a disadvantage over Pentax and Sony users.

0.6 secs shutter speed on a wide angel lens, with image stabilizer actually can don use tripod. Assuming using 16mm, then with 3 fstop compensation from IS, it allows a shutter speed of 1/2s to be used.

and you went on like a camera salesman..... with that imfamous 1/2sec claim.....

there are 2 types of image stabilizer technology. Lens stabalization and Sensor stabalization.

Take a look at this video to better understand them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

Canon and Nikon uses the lens stabilizer. This technology requires the lens to hv stabilizer build into their lens. And due to this reason, the lens will be very expensive, not to mention that every lens u buy, u hv to think hard on whether to buy stabilizer or not, and where to pay extra. And of cos the worse problem is, even if you have tons of money, there are alot of lenses that dont come with stabilizer version.

Sony and Pentax uses a better stabilization technology, the sensor IS. With this sensor Is, the vibration compensation is done on the sensor. As such, any lens that is attached to a Sony or Pentax DSLR automatically becomes an IS lens. It doesnt matter if its an ultra wide angle 10mm lens, or a super old manual focus only lens. They all become IS lens. So if a Sony user buys a 50 year old manual focus lens and mount it onto the Sony Alpha DSLR via adaptor, the lens becomes stabalized. This sensor techology also saves money for the user as they wont have the need to buy IS lens at all. For example, recently Tamron released the VC version of the 17-50mm f2.8 lens which im sure you know, is a popular lens among Canon, Nikon and Sony users. Canon and Nikon users will need to pay $940 to buy a Tamron 17-50 VC lens, whereas Sony users just buy the non VC version for $610 and still enjoy image stabalizer.

Im pretty sure Canon and Nikon can build IS into their camera body. It isnt a new technology. However they will never do something like that, as it will mean a very big lost of profit for them from the sales of IS lenses.

and you went on and on..... being a salesman and regurgitating.....

Sure, you mentioned tripod but that's just about it. Most of the time, you were just selling IS to a person who needs to find out how to deal with image quality problem associated with slower shutter speeds. That's misleading.

 

[Kit]

And i already mentioned for her to use a tripod. In none of my post have i ever said that IS is better than tripod. Since the beginning I have said time and again that IF there isnt a tripod available (due to situation or in places where its not possible to use one), then IS can still help to a certain extend.

And i dont see whats wrong with my idea of using handheld when no tripod is available. And apparently most people can accept that pictures dont hv to be perfectly sharp (just see the post before this and many others before).

Taking a picture consist of many meanings. It can be for memories' sake, or u see something significant, or just a moment in time that you wanna share with others. In these cases, the unavailable of a tripod becomes secondary. Sharpness is not a concern as long as the picture is good enough to be seen.

I dont see the need to change this way of thinking. And judging by the pictures here by other users as well as what they replied, i can see they do share the same idea as me.

Where a photo has to be technically sound, it has to be technically sound like it or not. Some photos loose its meaning if the technicalities are not sddressed. When TS started this thread, it was apparent this is the direction she was looking at so don't try to delude yourself into jumping onto the IS bandwagon. That's not addressing her concerns.

 

[android17]

I agree that I hv gone out of context in replying to ur post. My later posts has nothing to do with TS's problems at all.

Those post are replies to ur post, and I disagree with ur idealogy of absolute tripod usage at night, backed up by my reasons as well as with other users response.

Taking a picture isnt about making sure that perfect sharpness is achieved. Its more than that.

 

[Kit]

I agree that I hv gone out of context in replying to ur post. My later post has nothing to do with TS's problems at all.

Those post are replies to ur post, and I disagree with ur idealogy of absolute tripod usage at night, backed up by my reasons as well as with other users response.

Like I said, my comments were made within the context of the thread. Of course I'm aware that some genre of photography where tripods don't apply

and you are still taking everything out of context..... conveniently.

You were off course to TS's questions when you bring IS into the picture, not only the responses to me. You can disagree for all I care but I don't share the ideology that all night photos had to be taken with a tripod. At no point in time did I make that claim.

You thought you were backup in some ways because like I said, you adopt a lower standard of QC.

 

[Kit]

I would beg to differ that a tripod is a must for night shoots. Depending on conditions, it is possible to handhold:

Whether tripod should be used or not depends on the situation.

Tripod cannot be used in this situation. I believed that VR saved the day for ths pic.

Should have used tripod for this shot so that the details of the "snowman" can stand out.

and since you like harping on that the photos posted here backed you up..... let's have a look at them again.....

As I see it, 3 out of 4 could be shot with a tripod. The dire situation in which that shot had to be taken at any cost? With the exception of no.3, you mean the structures and buildings will disappear into thin air before their photos can be taken? What dire situation?

 

[android17]

You thought you were backup in some ways because like I said, you adopt a lower standard of QC.

scorpioh:I would beg to differ that a tripod is a must for night shoots. Depending on conditions, it is possible to handhold:


TheChef: I second that. I don't use a tripod for night street shots most of the time. My shots are sharp enough just by using D50 and 16-85 VRII most of the time, as Singapore's street are quite brightly lit and my hands are quite steady. But, if I need to shoot the Merlion at night, I definitely need to bring one. Somehow, I find the Merlion to be spooky dark at night.

 

[android17]

and since you like harping on that the photos posted here backed you up..... let's have a look at them again.....

As I see it, 3 out of 4 could be shot with a tripod. The dire situation in which that shot had to be taken at any cost? With the exception of no.3, you mean the structures and buildings will disappear into thin air before their photos can be taken? What dire situation?

yes they can be shot using tripod. But what if they dont hv a tripod at that point of time? And it seems they indeed do not have a tripod available, else they would hv used it. But they still choose take the picture handheld, knowing it wont be very sharp, rather than forgo the opportunity. Why?

 

[Kit]

yes they can be shot using tripod. But what if they dont hv a tripod at that point of time? And it seems they did not have one, else they would hv used it. But they still take the picture handheld anyway. Why?

The you should blame yourself for not being prepared(and please don't come back saying you can't prepare for these shots). Reflects the competency and dedication of the photographer.

That said, if you are ok with high ISO noise, distorted perspectives, etc, then its your perogative.

 

[Kit]

and I might just remind you ..... again...... before you stray. The issue at hand is not about finding alternatives to tripods. TS was asking if tripod is necessary in her circumstances.

 

[android17]

The you should blame yourself for not being prepared(and please don't come back saying you can't prepare for these shots). Reflects the competency and dedication of the photographer.

That said, if you are ok with high ISO noise, distorted perspectives, etc, then its your perogative.

I do not agree with ur assessment of everyone doing handheld shots at nite as lacking competency and dedication.

im pretty sure those who posted handheld shots here and in other parts of the forum, have their reasons for not having a tripod available at the point of time.

And there are many photos with high ISO shots being posted as well and they're fine with taking such shots too, not just me.

 

[pchmj]

My friend once tell me this: It's not about how good the camera and quality of photo, it's the subjects you take that matters.

Well, different people different perception. To me, those handheld pics are certainly acceptable to me. Unless you zoom and pixel peep, I don't see any problem...

As for TS problem, of course best is to use a tripod.

 

[android17]

and I might just remind you ..... again...... before you stray. The issue at hand is not about finding alternatives to tripods. TS was asking if tripod is necessary in her circumstances.

And she got her answer already, which is yes, she needs a tripod.

 

[android17]

My friend once tell me this: It's not about how good the camera and quality of photo, it's the subjects you take that matters.

Well, different people different perception. To me, those handheld pics are certainly acceptable to me. Unless you zoom and pixel peep, I don't see any problem...

As for TS problem, of course best is to use a tripod.

exactly. Picture sharpness is not the most important aspect of photography. Im not sure why some people keep insisting that sharpness = everything.

 

[Kit]

I do not agree with ur assessment of everyone doing handheld shots at nite as lacking competency and dedication.

im pretty sure those who posted handheld shots here and in other parts of the forum, have their reasons for not having a tripod available at the point of time.

And there are many photos with high ISO shots being posted as well and they're fine with taking such shots too, not just me.

Are you just going to carry on with these weak comebacks or admit you just gone off course with TS's questions. Really, why bother embarrassing yourself any further?

You might as well rip off every handheld / high ISO shots ever posted on CS and put it here to prove your pathetic point, regardless of whether a tripod is needed or not.

I was referring to the shots put up in this thread. Did I say everyone handholding shots at night is incompetent and lacked dedication? Again, taken out of context to fit your arguement conveniently.

 

[Kit]

And she got her answer already, which is yes, she needs a tripod.

and here you are blabbering on.....

 

[Kit]

exactly. Picture sharpness is not the most important aspect of photography. Im not sure why some people keep insisting that sharpness = everything.

Good one. Another cheap attempt to take my words out of context to fit your pathetic arguement.

 

[Kit]

My friend once tell me this: It's not about how good the camera and quality of photo, it's the subjects you take that matters.

Well, different people different perception. To me, those handheld pics are certainly acceptable to me. Unless you zoom and pixel peep, I don't see any problem...

As for TS problem, of course best is to use a tripod.

So you think a blurry, handheld, tilting photo of the Singapore skyline will make it to the printers?

 

[android17]

Are you just going to carry on with these weak comebacks or admit you just gone off course with TS's questions. Really, why bother embarrassing yourself any further?

You might as well rip off every handheld / high ISO shots ever posted on CS and put it here to prove your pathetic point, regardless of whether a tripod is needed or not.

I was referring to the shots put up in this thread. Did I say everyone handholding shots at night is incompetent and lacked dedication? Again, taken out of context to fit your arguement conveniently.

since when did u say u r specifically refering to those who posted in this thread? and even if u mean it this way, why dont u check with them as to the reason why they don hv a tripod at hand while taking those pics, and instead label them as lacking dedication and competency?

 

[Kit]

since when did u say u r specifically refering to those who posted in this thread? and even if u mean it this way, why dont u check with them as to the reason why they don hv a tripod at hand while taking those pics, and instead label them as lacking dedication and competency?

I don't need to check. A tripod goes to the place where and when its needed. No excuses...