Tripod vs hand held for sharp photos

There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott

Per Scott W:
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

Somewhere in California?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Scott W:
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

Somewhere in California?
--
PeteCresswell
Hawaii, the part that is not flooded.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott


Your logic does not hold up.

Per Scott W:
Hawaii, the part that is not flooded.

Oahu?

The lots look kind of large for some place like St Louis Heights Drive or
Wilhelmina Rise.

Or some other island?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Scott W:
Hawaii, the part that is not flooded.

Oahu?

The lots look kind of large for some place like St Louis Heights Drive or
Wilhelmina Rise.


Big Island, Kona side.

Scott

Rudy Benner wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott


Your logic does not hold up.
Would you care to go into a bit more detail?

Scott

On 15 Mar 2006 14:09:45 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

Rudy Benner wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott


Your logic does not hold up.
Would you care to go into a bit more detail?

Scott

You start out by saying that you don't need a tripod for sharp photos,
but offer nothing to support that. You don't even address *why* a
tripod might help with sharp photos. A discussion of this would need
to at the very least mention shutter speed.
Instead, you discuss stitching together many shots, claiming that this
will make a sharp photo ("It is clear that when there is enough light
a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a sharp
image then the use of a tripod."). This is wrong; if the shots that
make up the stitched image aren't sharp, the final image won't be
sharp, either.

Saying that, "if there's enough light" a tripod isn't needed doesn't
add much that isn't already known.

Without knowing the shutter speed you used, your post doesn't address
the need for a tripod.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On 15 Mar 2006 14:09:45 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

Rudy Benner wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the
requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how
sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much
like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below
the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size
is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is
enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott


Your logic does not hold up.
Would you care to go into a bit more detail?

Scott

You start out by saying that you don't need a tripod for sharp photos,
but offer nothing to support that. You don't even address *why* a
tripod might help with sharp photos. A discussion of this would need
to at the very least mention shutter speed.
Instead, you discuss stitching together many shots, claiming that this
will make a sharp photo ("It is clear that when there is enough light
a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a sharp
image then the use of a tripod."). This is wrong; if the shots that
make up the stitched image aren't sharp, the final image won't be
sharp, either.

Saying that, "if there's enough light" a tripod isn't needed doesn't
add much that isn't already known.

Without knowing the shutter speed you used, your post doesn't address
the need for a tripod.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Exactly, much better said than I could have attempted. Garbage in garbage
out.

Looks like some PS unsharp mask to me.
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
There has been a fair bit of talk over the years about the requirements
for a tripod to get sharp photos. Where as I am a fan of tripods and
use them often in many cases they are not needed to get very sharp
photos. I thought I would do a test shoot hand held and see how sharp
it came out. For this to be a good test I should be using a camera
that has a ton of resolution, but I am limited to my 20D. What I can
do it take a number of images and stitch them, this is pretty much like
expanding the sensor size on the camera. In the photo linked below the
shot was taken hand held with a 135mm lens at f/10. The sensor size is
the same as 56mm x 37.33mm that has 40MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/40MP.jpg

It is true that my image is made up of a number of smaller photos
stitched together but the photos were all taken hand held with very
little care in holding the camera still, in fact I took the 23 photos
for the stitching in 33 seconds. It is clear that when there is enough
light a large sensor with lots of pixels if far more important to a
sharp image then the use of a tripod.

From what I have seen you could easily have a 100MP camera that could
easily be hand held and still get sharp pixels.

In low light conditions a tripod will be critical for a sharp image.

Scott