DSLRUsers.com

The conventional wisdom in 35mm photography is to use a tripod if the exposure is more than the inverse of of the lens focal length

For example, for an 80mm lens, if the exposure is longer than 1/80 of a second, then use a tripod to stop camera shake.

With the D70 having a 'mutilplier' of 1.5 for lens focal length, is there a formula for deciding when to drag out the tripod?

Conservatively, 1.5x the base shutter speed as the 35mm case - not accounting for individual differences (there's plenty of variation here, and only YOU know how well you can handhold).

For a long tele lens, you'd almost always want to have a support (either monopod or tripod) as the weight will no doubt drag you down and make shooting a chore rather than fun.

and other factors as windy and lighting.

and size of the lens.

I think it is wise to use a tripod wherever it is practicle almost all landscapes i will use tripod even if it's forced in the middle of the day at 500/ it just provides not only a stable platform but you are forced to stop and really think about what your doing compose the photo and make it worth while. that can only be good.

also the size of the lense is a factor some are just too big to handhold for any length of time

and of course not just for the camera but your tripod is for holding flashes too

I decide based on how important the photo is to me. Some photos I'm just trying something out. I don't want the hassle of dealing with the tripod so I'll kick up the ISO to get the pic. With some picsI've planned the shot out and waited for the perfect time etc and the hassle of tripod is well worth it.

Also, is the lower ISO worth the effort of setting up the tripod? If so then that would be a good one. The most important thing about any picture is that it is in focus and sharp. If the subject of the picture is out of focus, or blurry from shake etc, then it is a throwaway and all other factors no longer matter (aperture, lens sweet spot, composition, exposure etc) so this aspect is the first thing that guides any decision of mine when about to take a photo.

it is most definatly worth the time and effort to set up a tripod. some things you wouldn't shoot without. landscapes for instance your going to be shooting in lower light at sunrise/sunset and stopped down to get the DOF so shutter speeds regualarly make it into the seconds. when i doubt keep the ISO at 200 put it on a tripod and shoot. also if you don't have a remote just set the timer i usually just use 2 seconds most of the shake is gone and the pics are usually sharp

Does anyone know why some places like museums, temples do not allow the use of tripods? I never found out why it was not allowed.

Are they afraid of scratching the surface. The legs of the tripod have rubber so quite doubtful it would scratch. Maybe someone would trip over.

kfandst wrote:Does anyone know why some places like museums, temples do not allow the use of tripods? I never found out why it was not allowed.

Are they afraid of scratching the surface. The legs of the tripod have rubber so quite doubtful it would scratch. Maybe someone would trip over.

1/Public liability! Insurnace Compamies won't cover if someone tripped over your tripod and hurt themselves. they won't sue you but they will sue the organizer or the organization who owns the places
2/ How many photogs have their public liabilty insurances when taking photos in the public places?

kfandst wrote:Does anyone know why some places like museums, temples do not allow the use of tripods? I never found out why it was not allowed.

According to the staff of the National War Memorial, they don't allow tripods since some of their works are not under glass and accidental damage can occur.

They were very nice about it, offered to store the gear at the desk and were happy for us to use the tripod in the entrance area where the eternal flame is, so I'm leaning towards believing their explanation rather than adding them to the list of places that just have a downer on photographers (esp since they also ban all backpacks for the same reason). BTW, and even further off topic, does anyone know why the bayonets have been broken off the end of the rifles in many of the war memorial statues?

The rule is: ANY image taken from a tripod will be sharper than one hand-held. End of lesson.

Sorry if I completely missed the point here....When calculating hand held length, why do you factor by 1.5? As discussed in other threads, there isn't a magnification, rather a crop factor. Should the calculation be the same as film slr then??

Andy

Andy, Matt suggested to 1.5X to allow for printing because you are printing the reduced crop at the same size as if it was a 35mm neg, eg greater magnification. Does that make sense?

Matt. K wrote:The rule is: ANY image taken from a tripod will be sharper than one hand-held. End of lesson.

Are you sure? Even if I was to take a photo at like 100 000 of a second shutter speed with 10 000 speed ISO? Care to rephrase? (checkmate!)

Glen wrote:Andy, Matt suggested to 1.5X to allow for printing because you are printing the reduced crop at the same size as if it was a 35mm neg, eg greater magnification. Does that make sense?

maybe this would all be easier if we just drop the film/digital comparisons and take each for what it is.....ugh I HATE MATH!!!!

A

Dooda
ANY picture taken from a stable tripod will be sharper than one taken hand-held. That's Physics!