Are tripods essential ? Im having doubts.

Ry@n

Ry@n

Ry@n

Associate
Joined
6 Aug 2004
Posts
2,084
Location
Essex
I have used my 400D for a couple of days now and to be honest its not quite as good as what i imagined.

I am a beginner, but i was hoping to at least take focused sharp shots.
I want to love the camera and be inspired to get out and take some pics but most the pics i have taken are rubbish.

For 'everyday', landscape and macro shots, do you guys think that a tripod is the problem i am facing ? I.e. i dont have one.

Is there any words of wisdom i need to hear to get me started?

Im using the 400D + Kit lense + Skylight 1A filter.
Thanks in advanced.

P.s. i was hoping to get on instantly with it, and be bugged to buy wide+telephoto lenses but i just dont see that yet. I have 30 days money back which id rather not have to do.
 
Posting some example shots will help us tell you what problems you'e dealing with.

It could be post-processing, or technique, or hardware.
 
DON'T get rid of it!!

When everyone begins with photography they won't be an amazing person who sells his photos for thousands of pounds... everyone starts of bad and then works they way to being better. I've been doing photography for nearly two years and I would say that I've finally mastered more or less everything, it just takes practise and skill.

To help you further, could you give us the details of one of your shots i.e. shutter speed and apperture? We could probably help you if we had that information. When I started photography I was always using a very low shutter speed (meaning a long exposure) so all of my photos were blurry, after time I got used to what kind of speed I should use. Sounds like a minute amount of time, but with something like the stock lens on, having the shutter open for more than a sixtieth of a second can make it blurry.

So don't give up yet! Just give us some more details and get posting some of your work and everyone on here can help you on your way to being a decent photographer, I was helped tonnes from people on here when I first started.
 
Tripods are essential, but then again you might never need one.

if you are having problems, take a look around and see what others have produced with similar tools. It is a learning process, and we can't expect to be masters immediately whatever medium we use. Take time to learn, experiment and see how you are in a few months.
 
It depends on what your doing as to wether a tripod is essential. I only ever use mine for landscapes(not all landscapes) and long exposures. I would suggest that your problem is simply technique. Post a pic that you thing is bad, and we'll see if we can suggest how to improve it.
 
As others have said why not post some of your shots so people can give C&C and help you along your way. I have found doing this myself is really really useful in learning and getting better.

As for a tripod, it depends on what kind of pictures you want to take. If you want to take insect macro, a tripod won't be much help. If however you want to take macro shots of static objects then I would highly recommend it.

As for landscapes, it isn't essential but for low light landscapes, say dusk/dawn it would make a difference. Also when using a tripod you can obviously usse longer shutter speeds, so if taking pictures of water this can create some really nice effects.

In your situation though it seems to me like you are just looking for something to suddenly make your pictures better. A tripod won't do that straight away. I would read up online, in magazines etc. about what makes a good photo and then get out there and take some pictures.

I have only been doing this a month though so all of the above could be rubbish. Deffo post some pics though.
 
Thanks for the comments.

The reason i am slightly dissapointed is that i used to get some pretty decent shots with my Fujifilm S7000 bridge camera. I used to also use it at moto-x and people thought my shots were brilliant, i even sold some :)

I hope and want the move to DSLR to only get better.
Here are some random pics that i have taken last 2 days:
I have a broken foot so cannot move as well as id like to :p

Anyway here is the LINK
All the images have been resized, which makes them appear sharper than at 100% crop.
I tried some HDR's even though i know its a required skill. Dont tell me off for messing around !
I have read some photography mags (Practical Photography) which seems really helpfull. Also i read these forums allot.
Any comments are greatly welcome, ill read and remeber them.
 
mate i may be completly incorrect here and maybe not explaining myself too well, but i think what could be happening is the move away from your bridge camera. dont forget that bridge cameras are sort of all rounders, they can do a bit of everything but not great, where-as SLR's have specific lenses for specific scenarios. maybe your expecting a little too much from your SLR and first lense?? you kind of answered your own question by the statement about the tele/wide angle lenses.

again im sorry if thats not the case its just the way it comes across from my point of view. i really think you should keep your slr and keep on trying, u obviuosly love shooting and SLRs will give you a lot more variety and flexability. You wont be tied down as you would with a bridge.
 
Last edited:
There are some nice shots there, have any been properly processed as it can make a huge difference in the quality of the shot? You also need to be able to move around a lot in photography (I find it a little annoying as I don't have a car) so your foot may be hindering you a little in that respect. Just keep trying and wait for the foot to get better. :)
 
Right, for a start you're using quite wide apertures on most of those shots, which doesn't help with sharpness.

Try this experiment - it's what i do when i get a new lens. As you don't have a tripod, place your camera on something like a pile of books or similar about 5-6 feet away from a wall in a room with a notice board or something on. Set the camera to shoot RAW, ISO 100, aperture priority, with the lens at 18mm. Take the same shot a few times, at f/3.5, f4.5, f/6, f/8 and f/11. Then look at the shots in detailed areas at 100%, such as text or textures, and compare sharness like for like. There should be quite a difference at f/6 onwards compared to f/3.5. The lens will also probably drop off in sharness much over f/11. You can try the same experiment at different focal lengths too. There will be a difference in sharpness between 18 and 55mm, and probably a sweet spot somewhere in between.

The kit lens is best probably at about f/8. There's little point shooting landscapes at very much below this, because you'll find some softness, and almost certainly a lack of depth of field will cause a perceived lack of sharpness too. The kit lens is not too bad really, great for starting out with, and if you feel the need, replace it when you've outgrown it. Getting to grips with post processing and the unsharp mask or whatever, will help no end aswell ;)

There's not a lot wrong with most of those shots on the camera's part really. A couple do appear a bit soft yes, but I still get bum shots with a 17-40 f/4L. A tripod really is an essential to be honest. Landscapes benefit greatly, esp with low shutter speeds due to narrow apertures. You need to work out the limitations of your lens, and try to work within them. That way you'll see improved results, and generally feel better about your photography ;)
 
Last edited:
robmiller said:
Fast lenses > VR/IS > higher ISO >>>> tripods
Click to expand...

All well and good until you need an esposure too long to hand hold despite looping the strap around something and leaning against a wall and holding your breath. I reckon that with a 50mm prime lens I can do that down to about 1/4 sec with some hope of not shaking the camera. Beyond that point:

Tripod >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All

To the OP:

Looks to my tired old eyes as though you don't have a sharpness problem, what you do have in many of your shots is a shallow depth of field which suggests to me that you have taken most of those shots with the lens wide open (or close to it). A couple have a hint of camera shake as well.

The gulf in technique between a bridge camera and an SLR is wider than some would have you believe.

Two things to get your head around before you send the camera back or buy a tripod:

1) Get more understanding of the relationship between available light, focal length, aperture, depth of field, ISO, noise, and shutter speed.

2) At the risk of stating the obvious, there is a technique to holding an SLR.

Stand with your feet just a bit less that shoulder width apart , knees very slightly bent and assuming that you use your right eye to the viewfinder with the right foot pointing directly towards the subject.

Your elbows should be as close to your body as is comfortable when shooting in "landscape", ideally actually touching your sides (but not too tightly).

Your LEFT hand should be supporting the entire weight of the camera, palm under the camera body, thumb and forefinger curled around the lens in a comfortable position to manipulate any controls on the lens.

The right hand steadies the camera, and at the moment ot taking the photograph needs to be as relaxed as possible. The right index finger squeezes the shutter release gently, and it is very important to resist the temptation to pull it away from the button just after the exposure.

If you have a second shutter release, then everything is exactly the same for "portrait" orientation, if not, the right elbow moves away from the body to a comfortable angle (which in most cases will mean that the upper arm is roughly horizontal).

Compose your shot, inhale, exhale and stop halfway, release the shutter, and then finish breathing out.

I know that this all sounds a bit strict. Of course there are no rules, and what feels comfortable for you is likely to work, but over the years this technique has become the accepted norm and you need a good reason to deviate from it.

The most common error for people moving from compact to SLR cameras is to hold the camera by both sides - an almost guaranteed recipe for camera shake!

I hope that you don't feel that I have been teaching my Granny to suck eggs and that my modest suggestions are of some help.
 
Oh yea to echo what they said about the kit lens there is a good review with examples here. The biggest problem with the kit lens is the focusing ring for me, which I get really frustrated with esp when I try to use a filter with it.
-How.
 
Thanks allot for your comments.

I think i have made my mind up and am going to take it back and go for a bridge camera.

The main reason is cost, i knew i would have to buy a telephoto lense for moto-x use, but i did not realise the one i saw for £240 is not really good enough, and im more likely going to have to spend £500 on the Canon 55-200mm F4L lense or similar. I doubt buying a cheaper lense would be good enough.

I cannot justify spending so much on something i am not so certain on.

Looks like ill take a look at the Fujifilm S9600 as this seems a pretty decent all rounder.

Dont go mocking me :D I have read all your comments thoroughly and come to the conclusion that im not so keen on photography as i first thought. I spend to much time racing Moto-X rather than being a photographer for it.

Thanks again, i will still be frequenting these forums.
Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom