# Is a tripod really necessary?



## Trevor Harris (Aug 8, 2011)

I typically would use one when doing a HDR, but I do see some friends who avoid it to due to the extra time and weight required. I all have that lovely bracket button that comes with the D200 which makes switching minds super fast. I can totally see the attraction of seeing the scene, switching to bracketing mode, and then going "snap, snap, snap" on burst, then going on about your business. Let photomatix worry about the alignment. What are your guy's thoughts on this?

Trevor


----------



## Bynx (Aug 8, 2011)

Photomatix does a good job realigning the shots. Because you said snap, snap, snap I will assume you only take 3 shots for your HDR. Sometimes (often to me), more than 3 are necessary like 5, 7 or even 9 and more. I try to carry my tripod around with me. Its not a lightweight or a carbon fibre, but nothing beats it when doing HDR.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 8, 2011)

It also depends on how many EVs you plan on taking.  If you're going to need 11+ frames, it can get difficult to align that many if you're constantly dropping the camera to waist level to change the exposure.

The camera itself can be an issue.  If I only need -2/0/+2, my D7000 fires 'em off in a fraction of a second.  But to take, say 15 shots.... well, let's just say a tripod would be preferred.


----------



## tyler_h (Aug 8, 2011)

As with the others, its situation dependant. Took a set of shots of a burnt out car in a forest today; 7 shots and a tripod was needed not just for alignment but for the longer exposure times I was getting with +3EV.

If you can set you camera to do the bracketing you need its easy enough to handhold 3 shots with only minor movement so if that covers your subjects then go for it.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 8, 2011)

A monopod may well be a good compromise.


----------



## Trevor Harris (Aug 8, 2011)

Understood. My d200 does 5 fps with the bkt buttion so putting it to waist height to change setting isn't really happening. But I must ask an additional question. I've been doing my hdr's at 3 frames spaced at 1 ev. I know it is based on the composition, but what effect does a smaller ev spacing and larger max and min ev have on the HDR in the end?


----------



## Overread (Aug 8, 2011)

Monopods, beanbags, a few rocks, leaning against a tree/post/rock/wall, a bit of string attached to the tripod socket (loop on a tripod quick release plate) with a stone on the bottom to stand on (like a plumb line). 

There are many options you can use to lighten your load and setup instead of a tripod and they will all work well within their limits. The key is learning when you need each tool and when you can do without it - sometimes you can shoot without needing the tripod, other times you'll certainly need it (longer exposures). So in the end if you do or don't need it depends a lot on yourself - my view is to have a tripod; keep the doors open and remember that the better the tripod the more doors you'll open (sadly stable and light are very expensive options)


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 8, 2011)

Trevor Harris said:


> Understood. My d200 does 5 fps with the bkt buttion so putting it to waist height to change setting isn't really happening. But I must ask an additional question. I've been doing my hdr's at 3 frames spaced at 1 ev. I know it is based on the composition, but what effect does a smaller ev spacing and larger max and min ev have on the HDR in the end?



-1/0/+2 is a good place to start, but is rarely the ideal solution.  You should really take enough exposures to capture the entire range of the scene.

In other words, meter the darkest part of the scene, meter the brightest part of the scene, then take enough frames to 'correctly expose' both the light, dark and all the EVs in between.


----------



## McNugget801 (Aug 8, 2011)

Sure you can do HDR without a tripod but it will pretty much always look like crap.

There is not replacement for stability in low light situations. Yes photomatix can work well blending hand held shots together but they will be lacking sharpness when compared to the same image shot on a tri-pod.


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm usually NOT a big fan of tripods b/c of the weight and time aspect. Also when I'm shooting a wedding, the less junk I carry on my shoulders, the less my back will hurt later on. However, on few occasions I've used a monopod and it did the job. Also when I'm running after my kids shooting video w/ slr camera, monopod is really handy vs tripod.


----------



## Bynx (Aug 8, 2011)

Whether a tripod is necessary depends on how seriously you take your photography. Lugging around a tripod is a pain in the a$$, but it assures you get the sharpest images possible, especially under low light conditions. You can come up with all sorts of excuses why you dont need one, and your pics will illustrate that nicely.


----------



## Over Exposed (Aug 9, 2011)

If an image is worth taking and you have the time available to use a tripod, then it's worth using a tripod.


----------

