On Thu, November 10, 2011 10:30, Gregory Fraser wrote: > > >>My forays (I'm not the OP, note) into shooting macro from a tripod have >> been remarkably unsuccessful. >>None of the photos I like have come from them, and it's a lot more >> annoying to try to work that way. > > The only macro fun I have done was with a tripod, bellows and reversed > 50mm lens. At that level of magnification you cannot compose the shot > hand-held because the dof is so shallow that even tiny camera movement has > a profound effect upon the final image. Still, I can't help but believe a > tripod is definitely the way to go for the best images. Certainly I'm frequently working with DoF that's 1/10 the depth of the actual flower. I think I'm not magnifying as far as you, though. > I bought my Manfrotto tripod specifically with macro photography in mind. > The legs move independently, they can bend far enough that the tripod can > almost sit flat on the ground, the shaft you connect the camera to can be > mounted sideways or even upside down under the tripod. I've never been > unable to set it up for any shot I wanted. I can set the tripod up for one shot easily enough. The problem is I generally have to look at half a dozen or so before deciding what I really like, and doing THAT on a tripod really runs up the effort. > A good tripod is the best lens you will ever own. I'm very glad I upgraded my tripod head and quick-release mechanism the other year; it's made using the tripod a lot easier and hence more productive. Still, I'm often limited by subject motion -- in macro if there's any breeze, in low light because I shoot human subjects there, etc. So I tend to think that a lens a stop or two faster than anything else is my best friend :-) . -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
