In article <4ft5op$aui@nntpb.cb.att.com>, rma@clockwise.mh.att.com says...
>In article <4fstns$ngu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Bob Neuman wrote:
>>In article <4fs789$i2o@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, jalbert@nyx10.cs.du.edu says...
>>>I am amazed at how many people will invest in expensive lenses with
>>>designer labels to get the best optics money can buy only to shoot
>>>images of dead still subjects without a tripod.
>>>for landscape work, the best optics money can buy are the ones you
>>>mount on a sturdy tripod. I don't know or care who makes the best
>>>lenses for 35mm, but whoever it is doesn't matter if you don't
>>>use a tripod. Bob is right-- there is no substitute for a sturdy
>>>tripod for landscapes. Period.
>>>J. Albert

>>Um, that is true for normal-->long lenses, but a good 20mm or 16mm
>>can be hand-held perfectly well for landscape photos under a wide
>>range of lighting conditions. Aside from the obvious advantages of
>>using superwides for some types of landscape photography, there is
>>the ease-of-use factor. I personally find a tripod too limiting -
>>the photo ideas flow too fast to be inhibited by even a fairly
>>convenient (if there is such a thing) tripod. This may be a minority
>>view, but I would rather be limited to what I can photograph easily
>>and well using wide-angles hand-held, then need to carry and fight
>>with my medium-light tripod with Arca ball-head. It is also easier
>>on fellow trail-mates, especially if they are not fellowphotographers!
>>So, I think there is a substitute for a tripod for landscapes:
>>a good wide-angle lens in steady hands. <-- (That's a period! ;-)

>Most landscape work demands small apertures, especially with wide
>angle lenses which need forground objects to give perspective to
>an image. This means shooting at small apertures, say f16. With
>fast film, you can handhold. With decent slide film like Velvia, you
>will be at around 1/45 sec *in full sunlight*. You can probably hand
>hold a 28mm or shorter lens and get full sharpness - in full sun!
>In most light you would actually want to work in, you will be 2 to 3
>stops off full sun, maybe more. You can't then handhold a wideangle
>lens at f16 and expect optimal sharpness.
>If people don't want to use a tripod, it's no real problem for me.
>Some people don't wear motorcycle helmets or seat belts in a car.
>If that's what they want, then good luck to them. No-one has to use
>a tripod as long as they are happy with sub-optimal images.
---I find 1/15th pretty reliable for hand-holding a 16mm or 20mm, and
---f5.6 sufficient with most photos for DOF with these lenses, unless
---something in the foreground is unusually near the lens. (F16 is not ---required for good optical performance with either the 20mm f2.8 or ---16mm f3.5 Nikkors that I use - here, again, f5.6 provides excellent ---overall performance.) Elite 100 or Sensia 100 solves some low-light ---problems. (Assuming a conservative 1/30th and f8 with ASA 100, that
---leaves me with a comfortable 3 1/2 stops or so off the sunny-day ---exposure, or 5 1/2, if I drop to 1/15th at f5.6 - which really is ---fine, in my experience, especially if I repeat frames [sharpness ---bracketing].) I prefer the above to the hassles of using a tripod ---(and I do like both lenses for landscape), though I readily agree ---that a tripod is preferable to hand-holding for maximizing image
---sharpness under most circumstances, if one can deal with the
---dad-blesset things!.
>There are very lightweight tripods and monopods. All are better than
>handholding a lens.
---(See above comments.) There is also the gyrostabilizer which I have,
---but the weight can take its toll when hiking.
>As for a tripod making you slow down, that's another advantage! I just
>don't see the "decisive moment" tradition being applicable to landscape
>work. Pretty much the landscape stays put. It's not going to wander off
>while you set up a tripod. If it does, you have bigger problems than
>unsharp images...
---Aesthetics vary. For me, I like exploring the graphic possibilities
---of landscapes, and am likely to shoot half a roll within 100' or so, ---since there are so many possibilities (and many of them may require
---positions for the camera that would be very awkward with a tripod -
---and setting the tripod would slow down the taking of the photographs ---that I see, and get in the way of the exploration that I enjoy).
---The landscape may stay put, but I don't! There is never just one
---photograph to take, but a myriad near any given location. A tripod
---can push you toward the safe, the expected, the static, the ordinary
---view of things - it is simply too much trouble (and there may not be ---enough time, if the light is changing) to push a tripod around
---to shoot the less safe photographic variations. And, as I mentioned
---earlier, trailmates may also not have the patience....
>The above does not apply to photojournalists who simply can't use a
>tripod, but it does apply to lanscape photographers.
---Some, maybe... BTW, I do not use a tripod for most of my ---architectural work, for the same reason I don't like one for ---landscapes - it's too inhibiting.
>Bob Atkins
---Hope This Helps