How often do you handhold?

I'm just curious. I can't deny consistent tripod use is one of the best ways to improve your photography, especially with the long focal lengths a lot of us use...but...I HATE IT!!!! HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT! (Simulating temper tantrum of my 4-year old).

I would estimate that 90% of my shots are taken hand-held. And my "bird" lens is "just" the Canon 400 4.0L...doesn't have IS.

Undoubtedly, I've had missed/blurred shots due to my stubbornness, but I value the freedom of walking around unfettered and enjoying the experience too much to be dragging around an awkward tripod setup.

Anyone else? Anybody use monopods a lot when walking around?

Hi Terry,
I find that the 200-400mm vr with (or even without) a monopod is almost (but not quite) as good as the 500mm vr on a tripod, but I can cover more ground and I see more wildlife with the lighter setup. It's all I bring for travel. I can fit it all into a carry on. I guess it depends on the situation though, as using the tripod definitely has some advantages.

I use a tripod for something like 75% of my shots. Keep in mind that I take a LOT of photos at night using massive flash. Even with that though, I use a tripod as often as I can. Sometimes it's not practical such as when I'm in my duck boat, or when I'm inside the cab of a freight train. For my nature type shots, I'd say I use a tripod about 90% of the time. As the old joke goes, do I always use a tripod? No, only when I want the photo to be sharp.


Kent in SD

As a landscape photographer It's a different ball game all together, although I'm sure it varies by individual. I shoot handheld maybe 2% of the time, the other 98% is always tripod mounted. Because of shooting in low light at f/16 and often blending exposures I almost always shoot with a tripod. I also find it helps when composing an image, I take more time and put more thought into it when dealing with a tripod.

Weight! I'm using a tripod considerably less now due to the weight. It can boil down to camera gear or tripod but not both after the hip replacement. Yes I miss shots that a tripod would have enabled but with the VR lenses I'm pleasantly satisfied with the results I do get. The majority of my work is now handheld.

I did buy a solid telescoping hiking stick with a camera thread on top. Cheaper than a monopod and serves a dual purpose.

it depends on the style of photography. for landscapes, almost always. travel, almost never unless it is dark. I hate tripods too!

It depends on the focal length, light level and subject matter. I won't even try to handhold my 500 f/4 under any lighting conditions, much less either of my 300's (2.8 and 4). My 80-200 f/2.8 sees about 50:50 tripod use, basically any time I drop below about 1/500. With shorter lenses commencing with my 24-120 I almost never use a tripod unless light levels are low or I have to slow the shutter way down for extended DOF. Lenses without IS or VR I usually won't take below 1/2x focal length. With IS or VR I'll go down to shutter speeds one slower than 1/focal length.

Subject matter may determine it too. When I have to be mobile to stay ahead of action or reposition myself frequently, I'm desparate to leave the tripod behind. If I'm more or less stuck in one position I'll usually resort to the tripod even with faster shutter speeds and short lenses, simply because the camera gets too blooming heavy after many hours. If I'm using a strobe for fill along with lenses under 200mm, I'm likely not to use the tripod either.

Probably the best way to summarize the way subject affects my shooting is the industrial shoot I just finished today. Though I lugged the tripod and my long lenses in the truck for three days, they stayed nestled comfortably behind the seat. I shot everything with a 12-24 and a 24-120VR, probably 2/3 flash-augmented to a greater or lesser degree, and absolutely all were handheld.

And a whine- After slinging the camera around and constantly moving for 12-14 hours a day, I was longing for the opportunity to shoot in one place simply so I could get the camera out of my hands for a while. And my back hurts. And my feet hurt. And yes, I have my feet propped up while sharing a bottle of wine and a relaxed evening with my wife.

My personal preference is to shoot everything on a tripod! My 600mm f/4 is just too heavy too hand-hold for any great lengths of time and I do prefer to mount my 200-400mm f/4 as well. I have used a good solid tripod since day one (mind you they weren’t that good then!). However it isn’t always practical and I often need to shoot a light lens hand-held with a good focal length! That’s when I settled upon a 300mm f/4 with a 1.7x TC (it makes it 500mm) and it works like a dream – tack sharp and light enough to hand hold all day! I prefer this lens combo when a tripod just isn’t feasible (and that is growing more and more!).

Other uses for my tripod.... walking stick, weapon to fend off branches, vermin and anything else that may threaten. I absolutely hate them and only use them for water and low light. Thank those in power for introducing image stabilization, especially since I literally cannot carry the extra weight. There, I've confessed. If it is of any importance to the tally, I do have at least four in the trunk of my car.

Hi Terry. I use a tripod for less than 5% of my shots. By far, most of my shooting (largely birds) is at bird refuges using a bean bag from my car. My 500 f/4 is too heavy for me to hand hold for more than a few seconds. I have a love/hate relationship with my tripod, most often leaning toward the latter but at times it is indispensable.

A related note - I have a bad back and can't carry my gear far, so for those long walks at the refuge and elsewhere where the roads are closed to vehicles for breeding season (6 months) I have modified a pull-type golf cart for my gear, including tripod. Works like a dream as long as the path is relatively unobstructed.

I'm in the same boat as Zack. I shoot mostly landscapes and use a tripod for probably 98% of my shots, the only exception being when I'm in my canoe or kayak. Even in my canoe I will many times try to use a monopod.

I also shoot mostly landscapes and every single one is shot with the help of a tripod. The only time I don't use a tripod all of the time is when I'm traveling. Even then, I have my tripod with me and use it when ever I can.

Hi Terry. I just got back from an extended tour in the Middle East. I had to travel light. So, I had the bare minimums with me, and I sure did miss alot of shots (birds) because of it. However, I learned to improvise! The edge of a building, big rock, post, all can stabilize a camera quite nicely. Now that I am back, I am using a tripod almost 100% of the time for birding. I have a nice pan/tilt head and am really enjoying it. Is it a pain to lug around? Most definitely. I use that setup with my 50-500. I use a monopod with my 135-400. One day I will throw down for the big money lenses, but don't want to right now. I have a tendency to change hobbies, and want to be sure that I am going to stick with this one!

I often wondered how avian photographers manage using a tripod. By the time the legs are extended the bird has flown off. And if the bird is patient enough, you just might get the bird just right in the viewfinder before the it flies away. If only you had time to press the shutter. The only time I can think of when avian photographers use a tripod is when they are working with a set up such as at a feeder.

As a landscape photographer I use a tripod 99% of the time. Of the 1% I do not perhaps one in a hundred I would keep. The rest I discard. Tripods can be inconvenient but I would not want to be without. Besides, it makes me look "professional"

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Hi William,

I often use a tripod for bird photography that aren't set-up's i.e. Seabirds, wildfowl! It's just a matter of getting used to it and also a little bit of local knowledge i.e. where the birds will be at certain times is a real boon!

99% of the time, most of this is nature/landscape. Exceptions would be: street portraits, church interiors or other places where tripods might be banned. There are always ways to improvise, of course. I think my yield went up dramatically with tripod use, and even further by buying a steadier tripod. After going through lots of cheaper tripods, I think lightweight, carbon fibre tripods are worth it.

I spend all my time hiking around , and most of my photos come from chance findings on the spur of the moment , so I never carry a tripod around with me.
I may use one and set it up in my blind this fall though in the backyard as it can get quite busy at that time

Because I tend to favor shooting flowers and with a macro lens, I very seldom use a tripod and that has carried over into the rest of my photography too. If I can get away with it..no tripod, especially since my camera has IS built in. The only time I will absolutely use a tripod is for low light conditions or if I am using the longer lens for birds.

Well, since I shoot mostly landscapes with a Sinar 4 X 5 monorail I have a little difficulty handholding it for several second to several minute exposures. Seriously though, even for 35mm most of what I do is with a long lens (600 F4) or a 200 Micro shooting macro shots so handholding is not possible for most of what I shoot. The one exception is with my 300 F4 shooting birds in flight or with flash.

As a landscape photographer, i use a tripod 80% of the time. Note, that is not nearly as much as most landscape photographers. I think there are situations where handheld offers much more flexibility (hanging from a cliff edge, for example). Handheld alows you to shoot more angles quickly, and be more spontaneous. In extremely uneven surfaces (like a rocky river bed) ive used boulders etc to steady the camera. Ive also managed to get completely sharp images with exposures up to 2 seconds (doesnt always work out, tho).

I shoot mostly Avian, and I shoot handheld virtually all the time. I have only used the monopod when I am watching a nest that is high in a tree, other wise my back is going to scream at me.

I walk a lot when I am photographing and just adding the weight of the monopod to my backpack caused some pain to my feet & back. So I leave the monopod in the car in case I need it.

Terry, since you're specifically talking birds, that's what I'll respond to.

My primary birding lenses have been the 100-400L IS and the 400 f5.6L. I've shot the heaviest 400, the 500 and the 600, but for me those are almost always tripod (or at least monopod) lenses.

When moving from place to place on foot, where off-the-cuff grab shots may present themselves with no notice. I have a heavy-duty Manfrotto monopod mounted. IS or not, the monopod is an excellent compromise between the shakiness of handheld and the solidity of a tripod, IMO. Many is the time the monopod has saved my bacon at questionable shutter speeds, producing marketably sharp images where handheld would have had me pulling my hair out. In many of these situations I've fired off several bursts before my tripod-mounted companions have even finished setting up, and you know how often the bird is gone before the tripod is locked and cocked.

And I have the monopod set up with a quick-release plate on a Manfrotto ballhead, too. The easiest way to carry this setup, which is lightweight by telephoto standards, is with the camera/lens over my shoulder, lens pointed down by back toward the ground and monopod extending down and in front of me. Fast and easy to whip it into position, and if a BIF opp comes along suddenly it's the work of a single second to release the plate, let the monopod fall to the grond and go handheld.

Setups I handle differently. Even with those lighter lenses I mentioned, if I'm shooting a setup, say at a hummingbird feeder, an eagle's nest or a perch for calling in warblers with taped warbler song, then it's a tripod all the way. Same thing if I'm set up in a static location hunkered in a good spot in the woods, blending with the surroundings and waiting for birds or animals to come in. In a static location it's just too darn hard to hold the camera in ready position for long periods of time, and a ballhead on my tripod gives me all the flexibility I need for reframing (it would be a Wimberly head if I owned one of Canon's big dogs).

So, for moving around, the monopod with quick-release option for on-demand HH. For static locations, the tripod. So far it's worked pretty well, though this whole photography thing continues to be a work in progress and probably will be forever. These are not recommendations or directives for anyone else, merely a reflection on how I do it and why I do it the way I do.

With my little 7mp Coolpix compact digital camera I hand hold most trivial informational shots that dominate its purpose of being in my pocket. However for closeup images I consider worthy of small stock usage, I will more often either put it on my old Benbo Trekker or if carrying my view camera atop the big Gitzo, brace my hand up against a conveniently positioned tripod leg next to the subject. Back in the old 35mm SLR days, I would often hear some person proclaim how steady their hands were for hand held shots...yeah sure. A sobering wake up was to challenge them to hold up say a 200mm lens while I looked through it. Person >>> that's not fair as I normally most use my 50mm. Well guess what, that still means there is 1/4 as much blur motion although it isn't too noticeable in the view finder. Fine if you are just going to print snapshots. And if you are using higher ASA fast shutter speeds, again no problem. There's a right tool for every job and your comment obviously reflects your own subjects and image size needs.

Here on the following link is my Gitzo a couple days ago precariously placed atop a 4 foot diameter redwood log with my lens reaching about 75 inches higher than the log. My Wisner has a large shift range, my 150mm Nikkor a fairly decent image circle to move in, but to keep the background trees vertical I still needed to get as high as possible. To reach that height I had to stand on a wobbly 20 ounce foldable tripod chair itself precarious positioned atop the log. This pic was taken just after exposing a sheet 16 seconds for rhodendendron and redwood trunks. Just an extreme example of the right tool for specific jobs.

http://davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/tripod_log.jpg

Now that I have joined NPN and learned a few things, I shoot about 95% with a tripod. I find it sometimes most efficient to compose hand held then add the tripod for the exposure. Since I don't use GND's I often need to make exposure blends and thus the tripod is mandatory. Prior to joining NPN I used a tripod only for macro flower shots back in the old days (1980's for me).

I don't really like using a tripod; it just seems to be another layer of complexity to get in the way and potentially break down. But I will lug the thing into the high country this summer. The extra effort and hassle is totally worth it.

My tripod has carbon fiber legs so it's a bit lighter than some. I have fastened a loop of bungee cord around the insertion of the legs that I can step on when I need to increase the weight of the unit.

If I am shooting people, I will almost always go handheld. Since I try to avoid portrait and wedding work, this generally means shooting festivals, sporting events and family, none of which I consider to be my serious work.

Other than that, always a tripod.

Mostly landscapes, always handheld.

Until I find a tripod that's cheap, durable, lightweight, easy to pack/carry/setup, and otherwise ideal, I don't see my habits changing any time soon. Every time I take my tripod, it just sits in the car and never gets used. Instead, I generally just try to improvise on location, whether it's by piling up some small rocks, leaning it on a fallen tree, etc. It's not as good as a tripod, but I figure the tradeoff of not lugging around the tripod is worth it.

The other reason for not using a tripod is that I'm a hiker that likes photography - not a photographer that likes hiking. I like to keep moving, so I spend very little time composing a shot. As I get more into panoramic photography, I'm sure I'll start using a tripod more, but so far my handheld panoramas have turned out remarkably well...

All my avian work these days is with a 300/2.8 Nikkor and a matched 2x. I never use this hand held - its just too heavy and hard to control for me.

At the Water Ranch where I now do most of my shooting, I mount this on a Gitzo 1325 carbon fibre tripod with a Really Right Stuff BH-55 ball head and a Whimberly Sidekick. I carry this around for a few hours and a few miles every time I visit, with the legs extended to standing height, the gimbal loose, and the camera turned on ready to shoot. I also wear a fanny pack to carry my 1.4x converter (that almost never gets used), my SB-88 flash (usually stays in the pack as well), a wallet with CF cards and spare battery for the D200, and at least one 500ml bottle of water (sometimes two when it gets into the triple digits like now). I can shoot with this pretty fast, although not as fast as my friend who used to work with a Canon 400/5.6 and a monopod. If I don't scare the bird away dropping the tripod to the ground it is really quick to get the bird in the finder and start getting off shots (perhaps because I can rely on the Nikon meter?).

When I'm working from my Toyota RAV4 I mount this same setup on a monopod with Bogen tilt head and RRS quick release clamp; the monopod fits with little play between the seat and the door.

Since I avoid flash as much as possible its not uncommon to find I'm working at 1/30th-1/60th and the tripod is essential.

If I was doing as much birding as I used to do then I'd want a 300/4 AF-S lens and I'd use it hand held when something interesting was encountered. In my NJ days using film I used a manual focus 400/5.6 as my walkabout lens without a tripod and relied on Kodachrome 200 for its "speed."

If I'm just doing point-and-shoot subjects with a 12-24 or 18-70 I'll mostly just hand hold the camera, but if I'm serious about the subject I'll use a tripod with even my widest lenses.

I'm the same as Steve Foss, and for exactly the same reasons.

The only time i use my tripod now, is when shooting from my hide.

I think the usability of todays medium-high iso's make monopods a viable alternative for me, compared to my days of having to use 64asa film exclusively.

Alan

Terry, I couldn't agree with you more that using a tripod will improve your photography. Depending on the subject I will use a tripod if I'm in a blind, however I tend to be more mobile
and tripods just don't work for me. My lenses of choice for avian and mammals is 70-200,
400mm prime and 500mm prime. I find a monopod to be the ticket even for the 500mm
setup which weighs in at 8.6lbs. I think the trick is to utilize anything around you to form
a tripod effect, such as leaning against a tree or fence post or wall to help steady the rig.
I also adjust my ISO to get the shutter speed needed for sharp images. The only time I find
that I handhold is flight shots using the 70-200 or the 400 F5.6 as these lenses are very
light and extremely easy to manuever. So go get yourself a good monopod practice some
technique and have fun getting sharp images!

Jim

I shoot landscapes but probably 80% of my photos are handheld even though my camera doesn't have stabilization. One of the reasons is that I have been blessed with very steady hands. I can get crisp shots consistently at 1/50, hit probably 50% at 1/20 and even have a few very sharp shots taken at 1/10. On the other hand, I always pack my tripod on hikes because I am a big fan of multiple exposures to capture those extreme dynamic range shots and I often want to shoot late evening and night shots. While I tend to shoot most of my simple multi-frame panoramas handheld I prefer to use the tripod for those 100° or wider panos and for multiple layer, multi-exposure images.

I handhold some 10 to 20% of my shots. I usually handhold when I am on a sightseeing tour in a city on vacation - the tripod is just not convenient and in churches and museums not always allowed anyway. Both my lenses have IS and the 5D works well at iso 800 if necessary.
For nature shots I sometimes handhold because I just wander around looking through the viewfinder changing height and position until I find a pleasing composition - a tripod is just not very convenient either in such a situation, but when I find a compo - then I set up the tripod. But sometimes I am also too lazy to take the tripod out of the car or out of the backpack which is some 100yards away from me. I can be a very sloppy photographer...
But in general I am a tripod guy.

Roughly 95% of what I shoot falls in the landscape category; almost all of the remaining 5% is floral closeup. I use a tripod 100% of the time for all of these shots. I almost always pick out a rough composition handheld, and will occasionally take a (soon-to-be-deleted) test shot but then the camera goes on the tripod for compositional fine-tuning and actual exposure.

My 4x5 requires a tripod. I am so accustomed to using one it is a natural part of my 'ritual'. I might handhold my Mamiya 645 MF SLR on very rare occassions. I do handhold my digital P&S because I can't get a QR plate for it.

-PB

I use a tripod at least 95% of the time for the freedom.

Imagine being free to shoot any subject at any focal length, any aperture, and any shutter speed. That's the freedom a tripod gives me.

With the 600 I always use one, but I LOVE the 200-400 and hand hold it or use it with a monopod quite a bit...I just like the ability to move around and stalk things sometimes...it makes me feel more free...tripods definitely help but if you hate it that much I would consider developing a system that allows you the ability to hand hold and produce sharp images. For me it is all about enjoying the process and if you aren't then who cares how sharp the photo is. The more joy and inspiration you feel while photographing the more inspiring you photos will be. Who knows...maybe you will find you need to use a tripod to get the sort of images you want, but perhaps not.

Don't be afraid to work with your prejudice...maybe you can't create the same shot you could have it you had used a tripod....well who cares? Maybe you can create something more interesting. Try using motion to your advantage....work with it...Nick Nichols (NG Photographer) has done some amazing wildlife work that uses a ton of motion (amazing photographer if you have never seen his work). Be creative...while everyone else is shooting on a tipod perhaps you will create some unique and inspiring images by not. Just make sure you know how and why to use a tipod when you need it. Once you know the rules you can much more effectively break them. All the best...Nate

Hi Terry,
100% of the time I use a tripod or window mount. Never hand hold.

Ronnie

I have both tripod and monopod in my vehicle at all times. They are professional models and have the RRS mounts on them as do my cameras. Alas, that is pretty much where they stay unless I specifically take them out for a purpose. On the other hand, my camera is with me where ever I go. Many of my images are from boats where neither a tripod nor a monopod is going to help much -actually engine vibration will transfer better if I am attached to either of them. So, handhold I go forsaking the ultimate in sharpness my cameras and lenses can offer. I don't print HUGE prints anyway at this time, so what I am doing works well. And I also have a ton of images that I would not have if I only took a shot with the tripod or monopod connected.

Troup Nightingale

For nature images, it's some type of support (tripod, beanbag, ground pod) ~99% of the time.

I gotta toss this out:

How often do I handhold?

Not nearly enough these days, according to my wife. Sounds like it's time for another sunset dinner on the beach, doesn't it?

Nice sentiment, Hank. It's something we could all do more of.

-PB

ps: Don't forget the wine!

Only because you ask, I will say that I love tripods and use them for 99% of my photographs.

I enjoy the process of composition. I also used to crave technical excellence. That composition thing means I work with glacial speed. A tripod is my friend because my camera is heavy, but with a tripod I can ponder composition in complete sloth. The tripod is also a help with that technical thing, but I'm over it now, well, maybe not. A sharp image of a nature subject is a joy. No trembling mortal can shoot a sharp natural light macro shot without support.

For what I do, a tripod is essential. I can't imagine imaging without one.

I still don't know good light from bad. I get reminded of that regularly. I sometimes photograph subjects that aren't pretty to normal people. I get reminded of that too. All I can say is that every photograph was a bit of fun to make and the black box was supported by a faithful, three-legged friend.

Pete D. doesn't claim to compose well, merely composes to claim he is well

"Pete D. doesn't claim to compose well, merely composes to claim he is well"

I almost never shoot hand-held. I pack a Pentax 645 film camera, three or four lenses, and a tripod. Yes, the weight of the gear and awkwardness of carrying a tripod can be burdensome. However, what's the point of hiking miles into the woods to take photos that can't be enlarged because they aren't sharp?

Hi Terrry, I handhold my 500IS, maybe 75% of the time now, it really depends where I'm shooting and how much light is available.