Paul over at Musings has been ranting lately about handheld cameras versus tripods. He’s against handholding on principle, but then he is swayed by the digital Leica M8 (aren’t we all—I think about that camera, and then I think about how many weeks in Europe I could spend the money on instead). I used to compose on a tripod for the majority of my shots. I was tripod fluent, imagining where it should be and how high, splaying the legs creatively on the most uneven of surfaces. I have traipsed across countries and continents with it hanging from my belt at all times. However, ever since I started doing most of my shooting with a 24-105 IS, the tripod is practically gathering dust.
On this trip, I have made about two thousand exposures. I have used the tripod for three of those exposures, at a dance when I wanted blurry dancers at a one second exposure from a balcony, It wasn’t that great a shot—the handhelds from the same spot were much better.
My tripod is one of those new, super lightweight Gitzos that have the cool feature of snapping out all the legs with a single twirl. It’s so much easier to carry and use than my previous three Gitzo tripods. Alas, I have never used a tripod less frequently.
The image stabilization on the new Canon lenses is so good, I still don’t believe what I can do with it. At lunch today, I was showing it off, and so I zoomed in on the menu and squeezed off a perfectly sharp 1/8th second exposure. "What about a quarter second?" someone challenged. I did not lean my elbows against the table, mind you, but I was practicing good slow-shutter technique—elbows against the body, rest the camera and the lens barrel on two hands, don’t hold too tight, breath out slowly while squeezing the shutter. That quarter of a second went by awfully slowly. The photo was tack sharp.
Ok, ok.
I'm not sure it qualifies as ranting. Puzzling, maybe. Or musing. Yeah, that's the ticket. I've been musing on handholding and tripods.
It's not that I'm opposed to handholding on principle. I actually think handholding is fine; the problem is that when I try to do it, it doesn't seem to work for me. It's kind of embarassing, actually; I'm completely tripod addicted.
Maybe that's a little exaggeration. But still... honestly, it's not that I'm opposed to handholding, I'd actually like to expand my working style.
And that brings me to my question - how do you like that 24-105 compared to, say, the older 28-70 f/2.8L? Enquiring minds want to know. Because (ahem) I've been eyeing that lens for a while, now.
Posted by: Paul Butzi | January 23, 2007 at 08:41 PM
My experience is similar to Doug's. I use the 24-105IS 90% of the time. Shooting handheld allows me to be more spontaneous in trying out various compositions. I've gotten dependent enough on this freedom that I'll usually bump up to a high ISO rather than grab my tripod.
24-105 vs 18-70? The 24-105 suits my shooting style, which prefers the extra focal range over the one stop wider lens.
Posted by: Andy Chen | January 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM