Tripods...help or hinder?

When partaking in wedding photography I found the tripod a hindrance, and after about three weddings didn't bother to take it anymore.

Now I am taking photos for fun again I still find it a bind.

What is your thoughts on the humble tripod...'can't live without it' OR 'it's in the back of the cupboard gathering dust'.

It's one of those things that is a pain to carry but so necessary for the right shots. If you compare hand held to tripod mounted shots, even at handheld shutter speeds you will likely see a benefit. However, yes, you probably had to lug it for two hours before you find your picture...and yes, the spontanious picture with tripod isn't likely to happen. So, depends what you are doing...

Monopods can be a compromise, give some stability and easy to carry. no long exposures but again there is a detectable difference. I think maybe some people never see their pictures at 100% (or more), just letting the computer resize to display, so don't realise the difference some sort of stabiliser makes.

Agree with BC. Some shots are just not possible without a tripod of some sort.

Can't live without a tripod - so important.

As well as all the obvious reasons - I find I take much more time and care composing my shots when I'm using a tripod.

Deffinately a must for night, low light and landscape shots. Although fast lenses, IS and high ISO will get you some decent hand held low light shots, you still need a tripod for long exposures. Like Phil, I'd be lost without a tripod for any landscape type shots, even in good light. Now for birds or wildlife, I think they are a complete hindrance, I prefer to hand hold and always try to keep my shutter speed at 1/800 sec when using my 400mm f5.6 L.

Agree with most of what has been said, I have two monopods and two tripods and don't use them too often but I think they are an essential piece of kit. I do like to attempt the long exposure photo's so I wouldn't really be without them. I can see your point for weddings though, and would tend to agree, I think they would be too restricting and probably unnecessary with the low light handling capabilities of current digital cameras and of course, photoshop.

Jeff

I found my tripod invaluable on Saturday - First of all because that 70-200mm couple with an SB800 and D700 is a HEAVY piece of kit to be holding for 8 hours straight!

Second for group shots it gives a sense of continuity from a composition stand point.

Third it allows me to be more animated and interactive when im posing subjects and groups

Finally a fourth point would be for low light situations

Oh and the last point and best thing about having a tripod at a wedding is that it allows you to have your hands free when you want to put your hand around the A-hole who thinks hes a pro when he gets in the way LOL

Complete opposite here.....so restrictive at a wedding..................I couldn't wander about taking candids like I do with a tripod................

and didnt feel i needed it for groups shots

and thats why I just started to leave it at home.

At a wedding one minute I am on some steps the next on my knees the next standing on a wall................toooooooooooooooooo restrictive.

lol.....but thanks for all your comments

Wedding photography would benefit from a monopod Jols. It's very quick to set up, lightweight and very stable for handheld shots. Tripods are indispensable for HDR, & panoramas. I carry mine everywhere now but then I'm primarily a still photographer ie. Mountains, beaches, waterfalls. Tripods/monopods will make a difference in the quality of your work.

Come on, there is no way a wedding photographer needs to use a tripod, mono or not, unless they have a serious case of the shakes.