If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I would buy one if they made it for Sony.
When I went to Yellowstone in Dec 2021, I took my D500 and D850 with my 200-500, 500PF and my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2. I took my Tripod with me and never once used it hand holding the 24-70 and the 200-500 the entire time. Being in the middle of a herd of 40+ Big Horn sheep and 200mm was to long at times being just 15 feet from some of them (they moved close to me). A Tripod just wasn't an option. Bison and Moose got very close as well. The 500PF was not used till our trip back and stopping in Minnesota for Great Grey Owls. The tripod was never used once, even for the landscape shots with the Moose with the 24-70 in a driving snow at day breakI’ve done a lot of handholding telephotos over the years. That convinced me to use a gimbal. It gets tiring holding all the stuff all the time. Even with holders and straps its weight drags. I’ll still handhold some as the situation requires it, though. In my upcoming trip to Yellowstone I’ll handhold my 100-400. But I’m bringing my tripod and heavy ball head for landscape and low light opportunities.
AgreeIt depends - when I want very precise framing perhaps in architecture then a tripod and VR off I continue to find to be the best option.
For wildlife in-lens VR on Z telephoto lenses is often enough - without the burden of carrying a tripod.
For landscape with telephotos when waiting for the right light a tripod and cable release reduces arm fatigue.
Overall though as IBIS becomes increasingly capable I use tripods less.
Wildlife is why I’d handhold the 100-400
It’s not a photography specific trip so I won’t beI hope you're bringing something longer than that.
It’s not a photography specific trip so I won’t be![]()
Just a reason to eventually go backOooh. Every time I've gone and not brought a longer lens, I've regretted it.
Thanks for these comments. Very useful! I have found most of the comments from all the moderators on this forum to be particularly well thought out and informative and I thank you all for that.I understand the desire to make photography fun - to have light weight gear and to avoid using a tripod. But there are compromises when you don't have a tripod or gimbal. There can also be situations that have benefits.
Precise composition - Many times the frame edges are important - both in terms of what you see and what is excluded. Precise positioning of specular highlights or other background elements within the frame makes stronger images. While it's possible to establish that framing handheld, what percentage of your images are discarded because of an intrusion or clipping at frame edge?
Staying on a subject longer - one of the best ways to get good images is to stay on the subject longer - not just seconds but minutes at a time. A tripod makes it much easier to stay on a subject for 5 minutes or longer while you wait for precise movement or action. Have you ever moved off a subject or lowered your lens - just before the perfect action?
Sharpness at lower shutter speeds - We all know how important it is to keep shutter speeds up for action. But there are times when you don't have enough light on the subject and have to slow your shutter speed to avoid excess noise. Stabilization is useful, but there are limits as to when it is valuable. While the keeper rate drops, some images involve very slow shutter speeds and using a tripod over relying on stabilization improves image quality.
Manual focus / magnified viewing - Bird photographers often run into a small subject that benefits from manual focus adjustment or magnified viewing. We can view a subject at 100% or more through the viewfinder - a way to improve manual focus, for identification, or looking for precise timing. When you are using a long lens, it's much harder to achieve precision with fine focus or magnified viewing. A tripod solves that problem.
Focus shift / Pixel shift / Auto Capture / HDR - All of these new features work best when you have a tripod because all of these features require multiple images with exactly the same composition. None of these techniques can be used without a tripod. Auto capture is a bit different in that it is usually set up to operate unattended, but a tripod or something similar to hold the camera in place is usually required.
Balancing action and movement with very slow shutter speeds - Last year I tried to make a photo of the master of foxhounds waving his cap at guests while standing in front of a waterfall. I wanted to slow the shutter speed to blur the water, but time the image so that his cap appeared sharp as his arm changed direction. I was using a 70-200 lens at 200mm with IBIS so I dropped the shutter speed to 1/10 second for the right blur of the waterfall - about 4.5 stops below 1/focal length. I took more than 30 photos trying to get a sharp image at a very slow shutter speed and not a single image was tack sharp due to various sources of movement and operating at the limits. I was running out of time. Ultimately I needed to raise my shutter speed to 1/20 slightly to get a sharp image because I did not have a tripod. I had to compromise creative intent because I lacked a tripod. This image would have been a lot easier with a tripod so I could frame the image and concentrate on timing with a high frame rate and short bursts.
If you are going through an entire year without using a tripod, are you missing something? I am certainly doing a lot more photography without a tripod. But I pay close attention to when a tripod is preferred, and try to use a tripod for those situation. I'm not using a tripod for midday travel photography, street photography, portrait photos or family photos because these photos normally don't require ultimate quality or precision . I don't use a tripod for equestrian, dog agility and pet photography as all of these require mobility. I don't normally use a tripod when hiking to photograph wildlife as the distances are longer and the photos are primarily for identification, social media or eBird use.
My view is that when I want to get the best images, I should be using a tripod most of the time.
With the resurgence of pixel shift solid tripods have become irreplaceable again ...With the move to mirrorless we've had substantial weight and size reduction in our gear. Having said that, in the past I used my larger tripod far more often than I do now due to a heavier kit. I have four tripods now and for the last 3-4 years, I hardly ever take my TC34L RRS tripod out. I also have a series 2 Gitzo with center column which is a must for macro photography. I have a couple mini tripods I use occasionally but use the Gitzo far more than all of them. The small series 2 handles my 600f/4 and gimbal with ease, even carrying it attached. Most of the time when using larger lenses I remove the center column for added stability. Just wondering if others are finding they're using their large tripods less after transitioning to mirrorless?