Don’t get me wrong, I love shooting handheld. Even when I’m shooting sports and wildlife with a big and hefty telephoto lens, I much prefer the freedom of movement that handheld shooting gives me. And for some reason that I still don’t fully understand, I’ve never got along with even the best monopods. But things get tricky under low lighting conditions, where shutter speeds slow down and camera-shake becomes an ever-present danger. There’s no point investing in sharp lenses if shaky hands give you blurred pictures. Back in the day, any self-respecting photographer would simply reach for a tripod, but image stabilization has changed all that.
In fact image stabilization itself has changed dramatically over the years. Some of the first lenses to feature optical stabilization gave a fairly marginal benefit of around 2-stop performance or thereabouts. Nowadays, even a ‘budget’ lens like the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM standard zoom boasts 5-stop optical stabilization. And that’s not all. Couple the lens with a recent EOS R system camera that features IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization), and the effectiveness is claimed to give a huge 8-stop performance.
So how does 8-stop stabilization work out in practice, or at least in theory? The rule of thumb for full-frame photography is that the minimum ‘safe’ shutter speed to avoid camera-shake is the reciprocal of the focal length. With crop-sensor cameras, you need to apply the crop factor before doing the math. So shooting with the Canon RF 24-105mm zoom at 24mm on a full-frame body without using stabilization would require a shutter speed of at least 1/24th of a second. Put 8-stop image stabilization into the equation and I should be able to shoot handheld even for a long exposure of about 10 full seconds, and still get sharp shots. I’ve tried. I can’t. At the long end of the zoom range, I’d need a shutter speed of about 1/100th of second without stabilization. Again, apply 8-stop stabilization and I should be able to shoot at 105mm with a shutter speed of around 2.5 seconds and get sharp images. I can’t do that either. Shame I left my tripod at home.
On the plus side, unless I’m shooting in the dark, I can expect to get usable shutter speeds that really do work for handheld photography, when using stabilization. There’s another bonus in that most recent cameras give pretty detailed yet reasonably noise-free image quality at fairly high ISO settings. Combine that with image stabilization and you really don’t need to pack a tripod. But I do.
For me, a tripod isn’t just about keeping my camera steady to avoid the shakes. There are many shooting scenarios where I find a tripod invaluable. For the likes of landscape and architectural photography (both inside and out), really precise positioning can be key. Whether it’s nailing the placement of foreground and background elements in the frame for a landscape shot, or ensuring that everything’s on the level and that my uprights really are upright in architectural compositions, a tiny movement in the camera can make a big difference to the outcome. I firmly believe that a tripod is the best compositional aid you can get. The same goes for extreme close-ups in macro shooting, with or without focus tracking. And then there’s taking multiple shots to merge into an HDR (High Dynamic Range) image, or shooting a sequence of panned shots for stitching into a panoramic picture. Or maybe I’ll just want to put myself in the picture without one arm stretching out to hold the camera. The goes on and on.
Long story short, I won’t be parting with my 3-legged friend anytime soon. In fact, I’ve got a few tripods which are ideally suited to different requirements, so I give pride of place to some of the best tripods for photographers, best tripods for videographers, best travel tripods and even the best tabletop tripods. Just take your pick.
