all depends on how steady hand You have. I can go to 1/2s handheld on long tele (200, 300mm) and still have a good keepers ratio.
as for using higher f stops, be familiar that unless You are using dedicated macro lens, once You cross f11 (on most lenses) the diffraction kicks in, not to mention the need of light, as f11 is so dark already and it get's really hard to nail the exposure and sharpness.

I did some firework photography in a crowd last summer, and knowing that they would all kick the legs of my tripod, I had the legs only spread about 30cm (1 foot) and placed it between me and a bridge parapet but that was enough to get perfect 1-3 second exposures that would be impossible with VR handheld.

You will be operating on the edge of whether a tripod is necessary or not so there is no definitve answer. Maybe the 'right' answer is to get a good macro flash setup and forget the tripod.

I have a tripod all the time as well. not always used with the feet on the ground. in fact most times just braced against my hips.

For macros i almost always use flash as well. Most times off camera with an attachment I made that is fitted to the macro lens tripod mount! :-) i will see if I find a picture of the contraption later. :-)

also at least F16 and F22.

If you are using external flashes, you can get by handheld, even at high magnification; check out this guy for instance http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/

For available light, in direct sunlight, you should be able to get reasonable shutter speeds stopped down. Most people will bring up the 1.5/focal length rule, but really it should be at least 3 or 4 to get good detail (the whole point of shooting macro), but that depends on your technique.

Yeah, I made the comment about Ken Rockwell in tongue and cheek. I never really know what to think of that guy. I genuniely beleive he has a screw loose but I do enjoy his passion for the trade and I think he comes from a perspective that sometimes is overlooked. So there is value in what he has to say...

Tripods and Monopods are fine if you have all day to camp out for a shot, go through the 10 point checklist and then use your remote trigger to get a frame. It's just not always possible to do those things. But I'm trying to figure out if it's impossible to get razor sharp pictures hand held or not. I figured if your shutter if flying at 1/500th of a second, what difference does it make if your camera is perfectly still or not? What is going to move that fast? And, will it matter in the end image?

With that said, I need to shoot on a tripod more often than I do just to see the difference..

Jon

elvishefer said:

boy, do I need a better storage system

I can recommend Lightroom 3 but you must get into habit of culling, tagging and rating after every shoot

aslightdelay said:
, but why not a monopod?

I find they are nearly as awkward to use and really cut the mustard

Sorry if I'm stating the blindingly obvious, but why not a monopod? Not the same degree of steadiness or support as a tripod, but I'd think that even that much support would still be more helpful than none at all. Not to mention there's less bulk to deal with, and some places that frown on tripods will still allow monopods.

thanks spray, mike...

I'd like to say I had defined a complete vision before shooting but in reality this is number 5 of an 8 frame burst. I got lucky with its tongue. Plus, I cropped it down in post closer to 1:1 for detail and framing. The only good thing I think I did that day was try to work the sun and make sure I was on the right side of the bugs when I was shooting.

That being said, 105mm f/2.8 VR micro, ISO 200, f/10, 1/250th on DX.

I went back and looked at my shots from the day (after I found them, boy, do I need a better storage system) and my shots ranged from 1/250th up to 1/500th.

It was a good day for bugs, can't wait until spring so I can get back out there!

I'm with Mike on the tripod thing, I haul both a tripod and monopod around now, so I can use them when I need them and when I'm allowed. Ken Rockwell is a very opinionated man, and while he's become quite tongue and cheek about the use of tripods ('i don't need no stinking tripod!'), I think the point he's tried to make is that a shooter can get away with a lot more today thanks to high ISO quality, VR, etc. than ever before. I've read a lot of his work and he admits to using a tripod for his 'serious' stuff. I think the trick with reading Ken is separating the fact from the opinion :D

Hi,

From the other side...

I would recommend a tripod or sturdy support for every shot one shoots - every single one. It just isn't practical or reasonable. ;-)

To compound the discussion, not shooters are the same. Women are more stable than men at being able to hold their cameras (and guns for that matter) steadier, and as one ages, well, a support can be your friend.

If I could "amend the discussion", I would like to say, we should consider a sturdy support 'unless it's not possible or practical'...

@Elvis - Fantastic shot! Not only a great artistic eye for the little world but great steady hands, wish I had them!

My best,

Mike

Drdobs said:
Mr Ken Rockwell seems to think they never should have invented them... :-\

I'd like to see his interior pano's...

Drdobs said:
Mr Ken Rockwell seems to think they never should have invented them... :-\

What an idiotic thing to think.

spraynpray said:
If you want to see what can be done hand held, take a look at this effort of Pierres:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3205&page=11

I used to be able to hand hold and pan 1/60th with a 200mm on a 35mm OM1 when I was 20 something, but not now!

If you are talking flowers, wind is always the worry whereas butterflies you have to add heat to that as when it is hot they are very skittish.

Ok, that's good to see, he has crazy nice macros for handheld.. and HDR too.. jeeez.. My needs won't be quite so demanding... I'll be looking a little more for quantity of work rather than quality (I'm sure that disturbs many here)... But it's somewhat of a commercial shoot and we do better when we get more shots rather than the best single shots... I have a steady enough hand, I think at about 1/200th or faster I should be good... I was really just curuious how important tripods were... Mr Ken Rockwell seems to think they never should have invented them... :-\

Nice one Elvis - what lens/aperture etc?

I've found that with bug macro a tripod isn't as important, especially in the heat of summer, because 80% of the time or better they don't stay still long enough for you to set up a proper shot.

Add wind to the equation and there's so much movement to try and control a tripod just isn't practical.

I've sacrificed ISO to try and get good bugs in action photos, shooting at 1/500th to 1/1000th of a second, just because of movement.

If you're intent is to set up flower macro, things get a little better (and more tripod friendly) because you don't have to worry about wagging antennas, flapping wings and darting tongues.

I saw a write up once where a guy built a wire attachment from his tripod to his subject flower in an attempt to neutralize wind movement, but I've not tried it yet.

This is a handheld, high shutter speed shot, taken in mid-day direct light:

If you want to see what can be done hand held, take a look at this effort of Pierres:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3205&page=11

I used to be able to hand hold and pan 1/60th with a 200mm on a 35mm OM1 when I was 20 something, but not now!

If you are talking flowers, wind is always the worry whereas butterflies you have to add heat to that as when it is hot they are very skittish.

Close ups of flowers really need to be pin sharp
this usually means low ISO (200) and stopping down ( don't go down below f22)
do some test shots in the garden to see how much the IQ goes down at very small apertures.
My experience is,you don't need a tripod in bright sun but if its really dull you need to use a flash ( off camera)
I have found it really difficult to get focus and composition right with out a tripod
Tip take some pieces of card for backgrounds and something to fill in shadows. needles to say someone, to hold the cards and (carry your tripod ) can be helpful

Excellent, thank you jonnyapple... Yes, I shoot DX (D90). Probably use the 16-85 VRII most of the time, then switching to the Tokina here and there. So assuming I'm a relatively steady hand (and I would assume I'm average), and I am willing to shoot at say 1/250th or faster, you don't think there would be any need for a tripod at all?

There's no question you can freeze motion with a faster shutter speed. What kind of shot discipline do you have and are you shooting DX or FX? On DX at 100mm, you can likely get mostly keepers at 1/200s and if you're good maybe down to 1/100s.

The best way to know is to try it out beforehand.

Here's a good read:
http://bythom.com/rightpixels.htm

Ok, here is a question for you seasoned pro's... I'm going to a public garden to take some photos next month (during middle of day). I'll shoot mostly from distances of around 5 to 15 feet however I'll also be picking up a Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro lens to do some up close and personal shots as well.

My question is this.. I do not want to lug a tripod around with me so the question is what do you think the minimum shutter speed needs to be to get really tight/sharp photos? Yes, I realize that no matter what, I tripod is a plus. However, I have to imagine at shutter speeds fast enough, it should mitigate the need for a tripod to some extent. Is this true?

Anybody have any thoughts or experience with this?