# Landscape photography: the point of using a tripod?



## anubis404 (Jan 10, 2009)

I have notice that a lot of landscape photographers are using tripods when they shoot. What's the point of this? Tripods add a lot of weight to your backpack. When hiking or climbing up high mountains, I strain myself with 2 lenses, a light body, the necessary food, medical, and other supplies. Unless doing a long exposure, I don't see how a straighter horizon (which could be easily done in PP) is worth carrying that much metal.

Can someone fill me in? Am I missing something?


----------



## Silverado_13 (Jan 10, 2009)

Panoramas?


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 10, 2009)

Ah, didn't think of that. If you're intending to do a panorama, I guess a tripod really would help. Then again, I don't know how to do panoramas.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Jan 10, 2009)

Well if you're shooting in broad daylight or with a wide aperture then you might think you don't need one. But there are plenty of reasons to use one.

1. It slows you down. Yes, that's a good thing, in a way. You stop to set up, you actually take time to frame and compose the shot and you have time to think about what you are doing. This helps greatly with overall concept and execution of any shot.  You have to ask yourself: what's my objective? To get from point A to point B really quickly? Or is it to take photographs.

2. You can't always shoot a landscape at 1/4000th and f2.8. Sometimes you want f16, f22 or smaller for a great depth of field or you want a longer shutter speed to capture the movement of swaying grass or rolling waves.

3. HDR. This is kind of a big one. The best way to shoot HDR is to shoot a few exposures of a scene. You _could_ handhold it and then fit the layers together later in photoshop, but why not have it aligned right off the bat?

I used to avoid tripods at all costs, and I still don't always use one for landscapes, but I can clearly see the benefits if you can afford to carry the weight.

I just last week bought the Sherpa 200. Sure it's a video head, not a ballhead. But that's what I want and MAN is it smooooth and solid for being only $100. I love this thing so much. I've already ordered a macro head for it for when my 100mm f2.8 macro arrives.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

Well hell, carrying a tripod is totally worth my images having tits .


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jan 11, 2009)

I would sooner lug a tripod with me and not have to use it than to leave it at home only to find I do need it.
Some shots can only be done with a tripod - long exposures in low light. To not take a tripod with you is to exclude the possibility of doing these.
I would be interested to know why people think it is more important to carry a spare lens or two rather than a tripod. The weight must be about the same. Personally I only ever use the one lens for landscapes - but that is just how I work.
But if people b*tch about having to carry a tripod when they are doing landscapes you have to question their dedication to Photography.
How would they cope using a 5x4 or a 10x8? You need a train of pack mules for those but people still manage to use them out in the wilds


----------



## Battou (Jan 11, 2009)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I would sooner lug a tripod with me and not have to use it than to leave it at home only to find I do need it.
> Some shots can only be done with a tripod - long exposures in low light. To not take a tripod with you is to exclude the possibility of doing these.
> I would be interested to know why people think it is more important to carry a spare lens or two rather than a tripod. The weight must be about the same. Personally I only ever use the one lens for landscapes - but that is just how I work.
> But if people b*tch about having to carry a tripod when they are doing landscapes you have to question their dedication to Photography.
> How would they cope using a 5x4 or a 10x8? You need a train of pack mules for those but people still manage to use them out in the wilds



I'd shoot more landscaps if this stupid city was not in my way. But anywho, My cheapass tripod is easy to carry, I honestly can't understand how people can complain about it period.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 11, 2009)

You may not notice the difference between a hand held shot and a tripod shot in a 8"x12" print, but start getting up around 16"x24", 20"x30", etc..., and the sharpness advantage is usually apparent.  

With film I always used a tripod for landscape photography.  The cameras I used were bigger and heavier, and I always used as low an ISO as I could.  I had to use a tripod to get the DOF I wanted and avoid camera shake.  

With digital ISO 400 looks incredibly clean, and I'm using smaller formats so I can get enough DOF with a larger aperture.  I find myself hand held shooting landscapes more often than I used to, but I still think tripods are a good idea most of the time.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 11, 2009)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I would be interested to know why people think it is more important to carry a spare lens or two rather than a tripod. The weight must be about the same.


That question pretty much sums it up. Love it!


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I would sooner lug a tripod with me and not have to use it than to leave it at home only to find I do need it.
> Some shots can only be done with a tripod - long exposures in low light. To not take a tripod with you is to exclude the possibility of doing these.
> I would be interested to know why people think it is more important to carry a spare lens or two rather than a tripod. The weight must be about the same. Personally I only ever use the one lens for landscapes - but that is just how I work.
> But if people b*tch about having to carry a tripod when they are doing landscapes you have to question their dedication to Photography.
> How would they cope using a 5x4 or a 10x8? You need a train of pack mules for those but people still manage to use them out in the wilds



If I can't get to where I need to go (say, the top of the mountain) in time for the lighting to be right because I'm being weighed down by a tripod, then I have a problem. Personally, I'd rather have the energy to hike further and take more picture of more places than take tripod pics. I understand that using a tripod is probably beneficial to the image, but apparently you don't hesitate to criticize those who choose not to carry three metal poles on their back. It seems that not everyone is open to the idea that hiking is not all about taking pictures, and maybe its not such a bad thing that people want to enjoy the scenery without feeling like a sherpa.



ksmattfish said:


> You may not notice the difference between a hand held shot and a tripod shot in a 8"x12" print, but start getting up around 16"x24", 20"x30", etc..., and the sharpness advantage is usually apparent.



The sensor of my camera body is 6MP. Things start to get a little iffy past 8X12. I never print that large anyway.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> If I can't get to where I need to go (say, the top of the mountain) in time for the lighting to be right because I'm being weighed down by a tripod, then I have a problem.


No offense, but if you're being weighed down by a tripod and can't hike up a mountain because of it - you _do_ have a problem, and it ain't the tripod.

You have no business hiking _anywhere_ if a tripod is going to weigh you down...


----------



## kundalini (Jan 11, 2009)

I know there is a joke in this thread, but I missed the punchline.


----------



## RacePhoto (Jan 11, 2009)

kundalini said:


> I know there is a joke in this thread, but I missed the punchline.



There is if you are like me, because I can never carry enough equipment, extra lens, monopod, tripod, cable release, camera bag... snacks!


----------



## JIP (Jan 11, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> No offense, but if you're being weighed down by a tripod and can't hike up a mountain because of it - you _do_ have a problem, and it ain't the tripod.
> 
> You have no business hiking _anywhere_ if a tripod is going to weigh you down...


 
_Exactly, _I used to go on multi-day backpacking trips and carry a Nikon D70 plus a bronica Etrsi along with a tripod.  I guess as has been said it all depends on what is important to you, a tripod is essential to high quality landscape images.  I have no problem though having the hike be more important to you than good images but a tripod is not really that heavy adn all you have to do with it if you are carrying a regular backpack is out it on top and close the cover on it and move out.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> No offense, but if you're being weighed down by a tripod and can't hike up a mountain because of it - you _do_ have a problem, and it ain't the tripod.
> 
> You have no business hiking _anywhere_ if a tripod is going to weigh you down...



I can tell that you're an experienced hiker.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

JIP said:


> _Exactly, _I used to go on multi-day backpacking trips and carry a Nikon D70 plus a bronica Etrsi along with a tripod.  I guess as has been said it all depends on what is important to you, a tripod is essential to high quality landscape images.  I have no problem though having the hike be more important to you than good images but a tripod is not really that heavy adn all you have to do with it if you are carrying a regular backpack is out it on top and close the cover on it and move out.



Both are equally important. When hiking up steep slopes for hours up a 5000 foot+ mountain, all while carrying a days worth of food, 2 liters of water (minimum), and medical supplies in California heat is not an easy task. Even though I try to exercise regularly, I am in by no means Schwarzenegger-shape. Keeping this in mind, I do not take kindly to being criticized for carrying something that is not going to make a huge difference. My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic (I'm going to assume that it was not)...

Yes, I am.  A tripod does not weigh that much.  With all the other gear I would typically be carrying on a hiking trip, I don't think I would even notice the added weight of a tripod.  With a good pack you should be able to carry at least half of your body weight.

Yeah, that's a lot of stuff.

I don't usually carry that much (that would be an 80 lb. load for me), but I have, and I would if I had to.  A good pack makes things much more comfortable.

It depends on how long you're going to be out too...


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 11, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> ...I do not take kindly to being criticized for carrying something that is not going to make a huge difference. My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.



Fast glass is not a fix for tilted horizons, nor can it hold a camera steady enough in a long arc to do proper panoramas, nor can it help you when it is time to take the EXACT same framed picture in 3 different exposure levels.  It also is not a fix for longer shutter times, no matter what reason you need them (minor star trails, aurora borealis, etc...)

If none of the above is in your list of requirements for a pic while on that hike, then you don't need a tripod... however that panorama shot alone, IMHO is certainly worth the price of admission for carrying that tripod wherever.  

And as mentioned, they aren't that heavy in the first place.

Of course, you are the one doing the lugging, so as far as I am concerned, since you are the one doing the carrying and you are the one that will have to live with your shots, you now know the pros and cons and should be able to make your own final decision and be happy with it.


----------



## abraxas (Jan 11, 2009)

kundalini said:


> I know there is a joke in this thread, but I missed the punchline.



Ok.  I get it now.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic (I'm going to assume that it was not)...
> 
> Yes, I am.  A tripod does not weigh that much.  With all the other gear I would typically be carrying on a hiking trip, I don't think I would even notice the added weight of a tripod.  With a good pack you should be able to carry at least half of your body weight.
> 
> ...



My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 11, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Fast glass is not a fix for tilted horizons, nor can it hold a camera steady enough in a long arc to do proper panoramas, nor can it help you when it is time to take the EXACT same framed picture in 3 different exposure levels.  It also is not a fix for longer shutter times, no matter what reason you need them (minor star trails, aurora borealis, etc...)



Tilted horizons are an easy photoshop fix. As for panoramas and HDRs, tripod all the way.



> If none of the above is in your list of requirements for a pic while on that hike, then you don't need a tripod... however that panorama shot alone, IMHO is certainly worth the price of admission for carrying that tripod wherever.


I never suggested that it wasn't.



> Of course, you are the one doing the lugging, so as far as I am concerned, since you are the one doing the carrying and you are the one that will have to live with your shots, you now know the pros and cons and should be able to make your own final decision and be happy with it. ;-)



Holding the camera straight really isn't hard. Again, I'm sure a tripod has plenty of advantages. I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.


----------



## BrandonS (Jan 12, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.



Just a suggestion.  I went out shooting at the Zoo for a day with a buddy.  We were using our tripods a lot and I always attatched mine with built in straps on the side of my bag.  Pain in the butt to remove and put it back on all the time.  

In any case, here's what I did.  Just take your tripod.  Flip it upside down and use the hook that's on it between the legs.  The one used to put weight on it to make it more sturdy.  Hook it around the top carry strap on your ba and let it hang down the back.  

If your hiking on tough terrain this might not be ideal as it will tend to swing to the side, but for a simple hike or going around town it gets the job done.

I'm with most, as I would recommend taking one with you.  It just opens more possibilities in the long run.  I take mine with 95% of the time when I go out shooting.  I took it hiking in death valley when I was shooting in the early afternoon and used it (and I can't say there wasn't ample light for hand holding).  It helps me frame shots better because I slow down.  Also when I was standing on loose shale fairly high up on a hill I felt a little more safe not holding my camera standing ackwardly to get a shot.

Oh and I used the method I mentioned for you to try when I carried it up the steep hills there and it worked fine for me so it's worth a shot.


----------



## Wozza (Jan 12, 2009)

Maybe a monopod would be a good compramise? I'm sure you can get ones that can double as a staff?


----------



## abraxas (Jan 12, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> I have notice that a lot of landscape photographers are using tripods when they shoot. What's the point of this? Tripods add a lot of weight to your backpack. When hiking or climbing up high mountains, I strain myself with 2 lenses, a light body, the necessary food, medical, and other supplies. Unless doing a long exposure, I don't see how a straighter horizon (which could be easily done in PP) is worth carrying that much metal.
> 
> Can someone fill me in? Am I missing something?





anubis404 said:


> ...
> 
> Holding the camera straight really isn't hard. Again, I'm sure a tripod has plenty of advantages. I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.



You've went from landscape photography to "run of the mill daylight shots."  

Why do you bother taking a DSLR anyway?  It sounds like you are willing to settle for tilt, blur, and broad daylight shots.  You could save some weight by taking a little tiny, frisky point and shoot.  More room for candy and medical equipment.


----------



## Jon_Are (Jan 12, 2009)

All posted by anubis404:



> Tripods add a lot of weight to your backpack.





> I don't see how a straighter horizon (which could be easily done in PP) is worth carrying that much metal.





> I'd rather have the energy to hike further and take more picture of more places than take tripod pics.





> The sensor of my camera body is 6MP. Things start to get a little iffy past 8X12. I never print that large anyway.





> My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.





> my tripod really is heavy.





> Tilted horizons are an easy photoshop fix.





> Holding the camera straight really isn't hard.





> I just don't see how taking your run of the mill daylight shots will greatly improve with a tripod.



Then don't carry a tripod.

Next thread.

Jon


----------



## GeneralBenson (Jan 12, 2009)

Hahahahahahaha.  Thank you, Jon.


----------



## andrew99 (Jan 12, 2009)

Camera resolution is a factor.  When I was shooting my D40 (6MP) I didn't really see much need for a tripid, unless shooting at night or long exposure, or HDR.  But when I switched to a 12MP D300, suddenly a lot of my pictures were not that sharp.  I guess more megapixels make the camera more prone to camera shake.  So in this case, using a tripod does add a lot of sharpness.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 12, 2009)

I would have to agree, if you don't see a need for one then don't carry one. Experience it the greatest instructior of all. 

As Mark Twain said *&#8220;The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. If nothng else he learns never to carry a cat home by the tail again. But if he chooses to carry a cat home by the tail then I say let him. It's not as easy to be excentric these days as it used to be.&#8221;*


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 12, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.



I'm sure with a few small straps you could figure out a way to attach it to your pack.

My pack doesn't have anything made specifically for holding a tripod, but there are plenty of ways to carry one with it.


----------



## Bevel Heaven (Jan 12, 2009)

I love it when someone asks for opinions and then argues each.

Undecided? Bring a bean bag to set your camera on, or just one of those little 6" long mini pods and see if you actually want/need to use a larger tripod in the future.  

Sounds like the answer is no.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 12, 2009)

abraxas said:


> You've went from landscape photography to "run of the mill daylight shots."



No, I didn't. I meant run of the mill daylight LANDSCAPE shots.



> Why do you bother taking a DSLR anyway?  It sounds like you are willing to settle for tilt, blur, and broad daylight shots.  You could save some weight by taking a little tiny, frisky point and shoot.  More room for candy and medical equipment.



A) A DSLR isn't nearly as heavy as a tripod.

B) The difference between a point and shoot and a DSLR with a good lens is tremendous. This can't be said for a tripod.

C) I will NOT settle for blur.

D) Who said I was bringing candy? Sure wasn't me. Nice strawman.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 12, 2009)

Bevel Heaven said:


> I love it when someone asks for opinions and then argues each.



I only argue when people start criticizing me for my decisions.



> Undecided? Bring a bean bag to set your camera on, or just one of those little 6" long mini pods and see if you actually want/need to use a larger tripod in the future.
> 
> Sounds like the answer is no.


One of the first (notice I said one of) good ideas yet.



Jon_Are said:


> Then don't carry a tripod.
> 
> Next thread.
> 
> Jon



I've literally had people to tell me to stop b*tching about the weight of a tripod without knowing how strong I am, where I live, where I'm hiking, or what tripod I'm using. I don't take kindly to a-holes who are rude to me because I make different decisions. When put in this position, I will defend myself. Maybe if you read at least a couple of replies you'd know that. It won't give you the satisfaction of quoting me out of context, but hey, at least you can be honest.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 12, 2009)

abraxas said:


> You've went from landscape photography to "run of the mill daylight shots."
> 
> Why do you bother taking a DSLR anyway?  It sounds like you are willing to settle for tilt, blur, and broad daylight shots.  You could save some weight by taking a little tiny, frisky point and shoot.  More room for candy and medical equipment.



My thoughts exactly.  Excuses are easy are always easy to find, compromises are even easier to make.  If all you want from your photography are "run of the mill daylight shots", you definitely don't need a tripod.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 12, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> My thoughts exactly.  Excuses are easy are always easy to find, compromises are even easier to make.  If all you want from your photography are "run of the mill daylight shots", you definitely don't need a tripod.



Definition of run of the mill daylight shots is not panoramic, HDR, or lowlight. You make it sound like everyone's images that don't fit into these three categories somehow aren't worthy. Reading the above post might help a little too.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 12, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Definition of run of the mill daylight shots is not panoramic, HDR, or lowlight. You make it sound like everyone's images that don't fit into these three categories somehow aren't worthy. Reading the above post might help a little too.



But this is worth reading. 
Professional landscape photography strategies for more dramatic photos

One of the excerpts from this tutorial.



> *For the best results, I always use a tripod*     OK, so this hot tip *IS* about equipment! And its not really one of those "Hey! I never thought of THAT!" sort of tips either, but you've been working too hard trying *all these techniques* to be disappointed with your efforts.
> 
> I feel I have to include it to help give you the best chance to make sure the other secrets will work, so you'll be consistently shooting better creative landscape photography.
> 
> ...


----------



## KvnO (Jan 12, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> I've literally had people to tell me to stop b*tching about the weight of a tripod without knowing how strong I am, where I live, where I'm hiking, or what tripod I'm using.



They may not have known those things, but you did imply that the weight of a tri-pod could prevent you from reaching your goals during a hike/climb.  To someone who's unfamiliar with what you do, perhaps that does sound a bit extreme.  

I don't think anyone's insulting you or calling you weak, but to some a tri-pod is necessary gear and they'll defend it as such.  Just like the way you've defended yourself here.

Obviously, there's a difference in philosophies here.  If you're happy with your images without a tri-pod (as you seem to be), why bother with one?  No matter what they say, no one here can make you carry anything you don't want to.


----------



## TheSon (Jan 12, 2009)

My carbon fiber tripod weighs less than my SLR.  It's a little over 2lbs.  If you're that worried about weight just buy a light weight tripod.

You can get a light, cheap crappy one for under $10 on ebay...  It's better than nothing.  I bring my tripod EVERYWHERE (even snowboarding sometimes).


----------



## elemental (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.




If your shooting style and priorities don't necessitate a tripod, don't bring one. Every hiker/backpacker has priorities. However, I don't think shooting wide open with fast glass is a very good way to do landscapes. Many great landscape photographs were taken with the lens stopped down a little farther than f/1.4. Sharpness and depth of field are important considerations for this style.

Oh, and I know nothing about "serious" hiking either. I'm definitely not planning a week long trip to the Gila National Forest with an 11,000 foot ridge or two involved and a sixty-five degree temperature spread.

I don't carry my DSLR at all on my "serious" backpacking trips. I carry a tiny Ricoh manual 35mm SLR because it's smaller, less fragile/expensive to replace, and because good film can still capture incredible images if you know how to use a camera. It's also lighter, but that doesn't concern me as much as the others. Oh, and the batteries last forever. That, a few rolls of Pro 160C (and maybe some of the Velvia stashed in my freezer), and a pocket tripod probably take up less space than your camera body and lens alone. I'm not into HDR (it seems to run sort of counter to the ethic of leave no trace backpacking) and I trust my ability to correctly expose an image without having to review it or check the histogram, so I have everything I need.

The best part is that the whole setup (including the film, which might be the most expensive part) cost less than $50.


----------



## Jklersy (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> I only argue when people start criticizing me for my decisions.
> 
> One of the first (notice I said one of) good ideas yet.
> 
> ...


 

Im a backpacker.  My pack generally weighs around 30lbs.  I take my tripod, which weighs about 6 lbs with me for my landscape shots.  thats an additional 20% to my pack, just for one item.  I only wiegh 150lbs and I hike about 15 miles per day on my backpacking trips.  that includes stopping to set up and take shots.  So I do say stop your complaining and dont ask questions that you dont want the answers to!


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 13, 2009)

I can_NOT_ tell you how much I've enjoyed this thread. Fabulous. 

I think I would describe this as Community-Based Entertainment. I swear this is the reason I stay around amateur forums.


----------



## Turnerea (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.




Not to throw flame on this fire, but you could get some straps from REI ($10 maybe) to strap just about anything to the outside of a backpack. I find it handy to have both hands free when scaling more difficult and steep terrain.


----------



## iflynething (Jan 13, 2009)

I think you should pay closer attention to the ads on thephotoforum 

Just HAPPENED to look up and saw this and thought it was ironic we're talking about the weight of tripods.....







~Michael~

Oh any my two cents: Dont' caree the backpack since you can't handle 36 pounds. With all the gear. Maybe you should hike less or workout more? I just can't believe you would hike 15 miles on whatever you call a hike, and then say you can't do almost 40 pounds of gear. OH NO!!

Interesting thread....


----------



## Jon_Are (Jan 13, 2009)

Holy crap.

Dude, you already "know" you don't need a tripod. So do not bring one.

I'll say it again: Do Not Bring One.

And don't take stuff so personally; nobody is questioning your manhood.

We promise we won't call you a Nancy Boy if you leave the pod at home instead of attaching it to your (probably pink) backpack.

Jon


----------



## abraxas (Jan 13, 2009)

I still think you need a tripod.

Have you considered adopting or renting a pygmy goat to carry it?


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 13, 2009)

Can I just ask why everyone thinks you need to use a tripod for hdr?  Photomatix lines up images automatically that I take just running past things...


----------



## Sirashley (Jan 13, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Have you considered adopting or renting a pygmy goat to carry it?



To hell with a goat, I'd rent me a midget and dress him up like a small animal of some sort in case we ran into a bear...

Last time I went hiking, my camera was too heavy, so I didn't bring it. I don't think I need one cause the mental images I got came out just fine. They are by no means HDR but they're good enough for me. Plus I have really fast eyes, so a few grass blades blurring didn't bother me. 

On a serious note, you can get a cheap, light weight monopod. I have one and it goes everywhere with me. Although in all fairness, all landscape photography I do is done with a tripod, the monopod would be a good alternative for someone looking to shed the weight of a tripod...


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 13, 2009)

I don't ever have a tripod simply for the fact that I'd have a wife and 2 impatient kids yelling, "Come on Dad!" the whole time.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 13, 2009)

iflynething said:


> I think you should pay closer attention to the ads on thephotoforum
> 
> Just HAPPENED to look up and saw this and thought it was ironic we're talking about the weight of tripods.....
> 
> ...



I really never see product adds on TPF, just an add for the Brooks School of photography.

This post is a prime example of the idiocy exhibited by some of the posters of this thread. He's completely ignorant of the fact that I don't get "light tripod" adds popping up all over my computer, and the fact that 40 pounds is over 1/5 of my body weight. Then again, your mother probably neglected to teach you any manners.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 13, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> Holy crap.
> 
> Dude, you already "know" you don't need a tripod. So do not bring one.
> 
> ...




Your opinion is noted. Keep in mind that I'm not going to sit here shiftless while being insulted by morons.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Your opinion is noted. Keep in mind that I'm not going to sit here shiftless while being insulted by morons.



You know written communications like chat tend to lack the body language and other cues as to when someone is being a complete arschhole and when they're just being polite.  Usually it's better to assume people have good intentions.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> My pack is alright, but my tripod really is heavy. The light but sturdy ones are quite expensive, not to mention my backpack can't hold a tripod. That means I have to carry it in my hand.



As legendary bicycle component designer & champion mountainbiker Keith Bontrager once said: light, cheap, strong... pick two.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 13, 2009)

Personally, I never use tripods... ever.

I don't even own one.

I don't really shoot stuff that requires them, but that's me...


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2009)

What kind of pack do you have?  Does it have a frame, or is it the kind of bag you would carry books to school with?

If you have a pack (not a 'book bag'), finding somewhere to put a tripod should be very easy.  The only question would be whether or not you could carry it.

If you overloaded to the point that a tripod is going to make or break your ability to carry the pack, I think you need to reconsider what you really need to bring with you.  Lighten your load, a lot.

A tripod weighs roughly the same amount as a gallon of water.  How much water do you carry with you?  You could loose some of it and get filters/Polar Pure instead.  Not sure where you're hiking, but generally - water is easy to find.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 13, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> You know written communications like chat tend to lack the body language and other cues as to when someone is being a complete arschhole and when they're just being polite.  Usually it's better to assume people have good intentions.



"I just can't believe you would hike 15 miles on whatever you call a hike, and then say you can't do almost 40 pounds of gear. OH NO!!"

Tried and failed.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 13, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> What kind of pack do you have?  Does it have a frame, or is it the kind of bag you would carry books to school with?
> 
> If you have a pack (not a 'book bag'), finding somewhere to put a tripod should be very easy.  The only question would be whether or not you could carry it.
> 
> ...



I hike in deserty California mountains, Not a drop of water in miles. My pack is a Tamrac Adventure 7. I'm pretty sure it can't hold a tripod, I've tried.


----------



## Phelan (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> I hike in deserty California mountains, Not a drop of water in miles. My pack is a Tamrac Adventure 7. I'm pretty sure it can't hold a tripod, I've tried.



That's a book bag style, get a hiking pack and you'll find it easier to carry the load.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jan 13, 2009)

abraxas said:


> I still think you need a tripod.
> 
> Have you considered adopting or renting a pygmy goat to carry it?



I think I love you.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2009)

Yeah, that's not really what I was picturing.  That's more like a camera bag that you can put your jacket in.

You could always put a sling on your tripod.  That might be the easiest thing to do, short of buying a more substantial pack.  I have one on mine, it comes in handy for not only the obvious (carrying it...) but other things like hanging weight off of it too.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 13, 2009)

*This is how* I'm carrying mine at the moment (doesn't show the long lenses either). Not necessarily the best option, but it works. When loaded to the gills, I'm toting ~30lbs. Soon to turn 51 yo, weigh in at ~165lbs, smoke like a chimney, drink like a fish and I can do an all day hike in the mountains. I'm one tired mutha at the end of the day, but I *want* to have my tripod in the mountains. The series of evening tequila shots are medicinal.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2009)

kundalini said:


> *This is how* [...]



page not found


----------



## kundalini (Jan 13, 2009)

^^ my bad.... should work now


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2009)

Looks like the same legs I have.  Different head though.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 13, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> ... Unless doing a long exposure...



You answered it right there.

Also, it does not take much to cause image bluring due to camera shake on long focal length lenses.


----------



## eyeye (Jan 13, 2009)

What about a monopod?  It will cut down on alot of shake, very very very lightweight.  You can defend yourself against a mountain lion too


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 13, 2009)

A monopod is handy for stablization, as a walking stick, and yes ... to fend off animals.

I have a monopod for long distance treking.
I have my Manfrotto tripod for short treks.
I have a Cullman Magic tripod for when I am shooting mushrooms.


----------



## usayit (Jan 13, 2009)

Nothing is more effective at obtaining a sharp photo than a tripod.  Even at reasonable fast shutter speeds you can still see a difference between a photo handheld and a photo on a tripod.  

My "normal" tripods are either a Bogen 3021 short with monopod center column and ball head or Bogen 3001 full height with 3-way pan.  Both are heavy but very stable.

My alternates

Cullmann Magic 2.  Not exactly sturdy but it packs very well and is pretty light.
2722 Magic 2

or

Gitzo monotrek 1560 walking stick and monopod w/ small ballhead.  I often require extra help to navigate rough terrain so it doubles as a walking stick.  I bring along some heavy duty rubber bands which can be used to strap the monopod to trees bushes and stuff.  I can even "make" a tripod with a couple sticks strapped to the monotrek using the rubber bands.  

http://www.gitzo.com/Jahia/site/git...KT1&actualPathCategoryKey=1CAT:AAA1:2CAT:BB34

There are so many options out there.  You just need to find something that works.  Some use small portables and others use clamps.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 13, 2009)

The monopod or the mini tripod seem like a good idea. A monopod is definitely doable, although I'm liking the idea of a tripod more just because it slows down my pace of working. Maybe I need to get a lighter (and better) tripod. Or at least one that is better than my dad's ambico .


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2009)

Just get a strap for the one you have already (even if it doesn't have somewhere to attach it, with a little creativity - you'll figure something out).

But, if you have the money - by all means get a new one.  Your old one will probably work just fine though.


Disclaimer
I'm not familiar with that tripod, so if it really does suck - ignore everything I just said.


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 14, 2009)

Well, it works. One of the arm keeps falling off, its a little heavy, its wobbly, and you can get it for about $30 online. But it works.

I'll think about getting a new one.


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 14, 2009)

I would hope that the reason for bring a tripod is perfection .. before digital ISO 100 was even way to fast for many landscape shooters tastes.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 14, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Both are equally important. When hiking up steep slopes for hours up a 5000 foot+ mountain, all while carrying a days worth of food, 2 liters of water (minimum), and medical supplies in California heat is not an easy task. Even though I try to exercise regularly, I am in by no means Schwarzenegger-shape. Keeping this in mind, I do not take kindly to being criticized for carrying something that is not going to make a huge difference. My glass is fast enough to handle doing hand-held landscapes. If a blade of grass or two is a little blurry, I'm not going to shoot myself.


 
You're confusing hiking and photography.  If you're going out to photograph, then you take the gear for capturing photographs.  For me, this involves at least one body, 2-6 lenses, filters, reflectors, grey-card, remote release and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS a tripod.  When I'm going for landscape photographs, they are the object of the exercise, so if I need extra time to get say to the top of a ridgeline for sunrise, I'll leave earlier.  

If I'm going hiking, then I'll throw my old D70 with it's equally old 18-70 in the bottom of my backpack and off I go.  Then the exercise is hiking, and if I see something I want to take a picture of, then I take a picture, not a photograph.  

As far as the weight issue goes, the Manfrotto 055CX and 488 ballhead together weigh less than five pounds.  If you can't add that to your pack...


----------



## tirediron (Jan 14, 2009)

xposurepro said:


> I would hope that the reason for bring a tripod is perfection .. before digital ISO 100 was even way to fast for many landscape shooters tastes.


 
:thumbup:  A moment of silence for Kodak Ektar 25!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 14, 2009)

A moment of silence for Kodak Panatomic X ...


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 14, 2009)

A moment of silence for Kodak disc film


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 15, 2009)

Hmm, I think that film format should have been silenced long ago.

Long live 110 !!


----------



## table1349 (Jan 15, 2009)

tirediron said:


> :thumbup:  A moment of silence for Kodak Ektar 25!



I have a small supply vacuum packed in the bottom of the freezer. For you first born I might consider parting with one roll.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 15, 2009)

So there is the tripod answer ... shooting with 25 or 32 ASA film + a tripod is a given.

... ah forgot Kodachrome 25 !!

I wish I could crank my DSLR down to 25 ISO.


----------



## iflynething (Jan 15, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> I really never see product adds on TPF, just an add for the Brooks School of photography.
> 
> This post is a prime example of the idiocy exhibited by some of the posters of this thread. He's completely ignorant of the fact that I don't get "light tripod" adds popping up all over my computer, and the fact that 40 pounds is over 1/5 of my body weight. Then again, your mother probably neglected to teach you any manners.


 
Maybe you should fatten up, stop calling the photographers around here idoits or at least exhibiting idiocy, stop the pissing contest because you are becoming an A$$HOLE and gaining a bad reputation to everyone on this forum. 

I think you should argue this topic with YOUR mother becuase I think SHE would have a better answer for you. Actually, no, you know what. Have her come along WITH you and carrry your damn tripod since you can't handle 1/5 of your body weight. Did you actually pull out a calculator to figure that up?


Dont take a tripod. You either hike to hike. Or Hike to photograph. Obviously you are NOT able to multitask.....

..."Don't come into the kitchen if you can't stand the heat"...

~Michael~


----------



## anubis404 (Jan 15, 2009)

iflynething said:


> Maybe you should fatten up, stop calling the photographers around here idoits or at least exhibiting idiocy, stop the pissing contest because you are becoming an A$$HOLE and gaining a bad reputation to everyone on this forum.



The ones who rush to defend morons are the ones who are gaining a bad reputation. Don't think you can get away with being an @ss simply because you have a high opinion of yourself.



> I think you should argue this topic with YOUR mother becuase I think SHE would have a better answer for you. Actually, no, you know what. Have her come along WITH you and carrry your damn tripod since you can't handle 1/5 of your body weight. Did you actually pull out a calculator to figure that up?


 
I rest my case.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 16, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I have a small supply vacuum packed in the bottom of the freezer. For you first born I might consider parting with one roll.


 
Seems like a fair deal; can I FedEx him over?


----------



## kundalini (Jan 16, 2009)

Yeah.... make sure you use FedEx. UPS would deliver him bloodied and bruised.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jan 16, 2009)

my crappy best buy dynex has this nifty little thing in there that can come in handy sometimes...a level.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 16, 2009)

tirediron said:


> Seems like a fair deal; can I FedEx him over?



Nah, use UPS, that way if I change my mind I just won't sign the received receipt.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Ken Rockwell (Jan 16, 2009)

There's pretty much no point in using tripods for landscapes anymore unless you are exposure blending or exceeding the hand holding capabilities of todays perfectly great Nikon cameras.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 16, 2009)

I just sharted!!!!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2009)

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------

