appear to agree about tripods being dead. Popular Photography's October issue says that with the new lenses you can "...toss the 'pod and keep the camera in your hand." Check out the TOC page.
A quick look at Rockwell's photography versus those many who DO use tripods will tell you a lot. He doesn't really do the kind of photography that benefits from a tripod, but many of us do.
Ken Rockwell is a questionable source at best and has been so for years. When he gets it right it is sort of by accident. A lot of his writing is really whacky (kind of like this one).
Of course, the whole thing is a misleading debate..........
Why in the world would you even want to waste money on a "real" camera that you have to lug around and remember to use when your cell phone takes really great pictures and automatically uploads them to all your friends, like, right now, man?
Just another couple cases of writers not understanding there is more to photography than "snapshots."
Easier to ignore them than to let them upset you and waste your emotional energy.
I try not to let Rockwell bother me operating under the premise that even people I like to ignore occasionally come up with a gem but I cannot imagine how much further he can insert his foot in his mouth. How does he come up with these things.
runamuck wrote:
appear to agree about tripods being dead. Popular Photography's October issue says that with the new lenses you can "...toss the 'pod and keep the camera in your hand." Check out the TOC page.
If you are redering to your Dynatran, then I probably agree
Lars Johnsson wrote: runamuck wrote:
appear to agree about tripods being dead. Popular Photography's October issue says that with the new lenses you can "...toss the 'pod and keep the camera in your hand." Check out the TOC page.
If you are redering to your Dynatran, then I probably agree
I'm not giving those beast up. THey work far too well. And yes, I have done low-light and night photography with them. SOmetimes it's just amazing what you can get for under 100 bucks.
Actually, Popular Photography was referring to ALL tripods, not a single brand in particular.
Lest anyone get any strange ideas, I disagree with both Ken and PP. However, a valid point is that IS/VR do make it easier to shoot in darker conditions than without them.
My Dynatrans still see considerable use, regardless of some snooty hecklers in the peanut gallery. I found something that works well without spending a grand for it.
davenfl wrote:
I try not to let Rockwell bother me operating under the premise that even people I like to ignore occasionally come up with a gem but I cannot imagine how much further he can insert his foot in his mouth. How does he come up with these things.
It's a case of "you can't fix stupid." He never ceases to amaze me with is prattle. Wasn't it Lincoln that said something like "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and erase all doubt?"
runamuck wrote:
appear to agree about tripods being dead. Popular Photography's October issue says that with the new lenses you can "...toss the 'pod and keep the camera in your hand." Check out the TOC page.
Amazing to me that a magazine dedicated to photography could spread that kind of nonsense.
veroman wrote: runamuck wrote:
appear to agree about tripods being dead. Popular Photography's October issue says that with the new lenses you can "...toss the 'pod and keep the camera in your hand." Check out the TOC page.
Amazing to me that a magazine dedicated to photography could spread that kind of nonsense.
- Steve
Bogen may not have spent the necessary amount on advertising for the past couple months.
Thank you for your kind comment. Its a RAW photo with a bit of luminance masking to bring out the shadows.
I did a course once with a professional photographer, practically the first thing he said was that a tripod was the single most important accessory in photography. I agree, if you are photographing something static you can look through the viewfinder and see your image in a totally deliberate way, you see the shapes in your image and you can design with total control. IS is great for some kinds of photography, but it does a totally different job to a tripod.
I don't buy photography mags anymore, you get more varied and experienced advice free of charge on the web!
I just spent a whole bunch of money on primes, a Gitzo 2542L and a RRS BH-40 figuring that they would be worth a heck of a lot more on my 5D than the 21 megapixels of the 5D mkII and my kit until now hasn't exactly been basic. Anyone want a 70-200 f4L IS?
I would like to see a link to that article instead of taking his comment out of contex. On his website he shows extremely sharp pictures of night scenics with a "pod" at 8 and 30 seconds. He also uses a view camera which obviously needs a tripod. I think he might be referring to the fact that with IS technology a tripod is not used as much as it used to, but certainly not to the exclusion of it.
"Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds."
From Ken's article that show just how stupid he can be. Tripods degrade sharpness. Wow. Shutter speeds have climbed. Wow again (I thought 1/200s was still 1/200s). Reduce the need for slower speeds. Wow yet again (what about slow speed being an artistic choice? what about moving subjects?)
Or shooting with those super-teles at low shutter-speed