In article <4ftqj9$kgi@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, hlester@nemo.as.arizona.edu says...
>In article <4fstns$ngu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) writes:
>>In article <4fs789$i2o@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, jalbert@nyx10.cs.du.edu says...
>>>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
>>Hope This Helps

>It DOESN'T help. Bob is STILL right, no matter WHAT the focal length.
>Sharpness, etc. will suffer! Then again, you might not care about that.
>Howard Lester

That's absurd! I care very much about sharpness (some are tempted to
use the word "fanatic") and bother to test large numbers of lenses
to own the best. In the process, I have learned how to take sharp
photos, which often does not require the use of a tripod. (There are even some circumstances when a tripod is inferior to hand-holding.)
A 20mm or 16mm lens can be held so reliably at 1/30th second, that
there will be no improvement in sharpness in most images taken at
the same aperture while using a tripod (assuming you have a fairly steady hand). Similarly high quality results can be had at even slower speeds, if 3-4 similar frames are taken to insure an optimally sharp one (easier and faster than setting up a tripod).
Higher speeds can about guarantee the same thing with longer lenses (that's why I like my normal-to-long lenses sharp wide-open).
Hope This Helps