My neighbor Bob told me to ditch my tripod for night sky shots, best advice ever

I was out in my backyard in Phoenix last August trying to get a clear shot of the Milky Way with my old DSLR. Bob, the retired guy two doors down, walked over and said 'put that tripod away, you need to go handheld with a faster shutter.' I was skeptical because every tutorial says use a tripod for astro. But I tried his trick of cranking up the ISO to 3200 and shooting at 1/15th second, and the stars came out way sharper than my shaky tripod shots. Turns out my cheap tripod was wobbling in the breeze and ruining everything. Has anyone else gotten better results ditching the tripod on a calm night?

3 comments

3 Comments

mark_price1mo ago

Read an article saying tripods matter more for long exposures @cole994.

cole9941mo ago

Whoa, slow down there, Bob fan club. I get that you got a better result than your wobbly tripod, but let's not act like handheld is some secret hack for serious star shots. Your 1/15th second at ISO 3200 probably picked up a decent amount of light, sure, but you're losing so much detail and color that a real tripod would catch. On a truly calm night with a solid tripod and a remote shutter, you can expose for 20 seconds and get way more stars and that cool Milky Way banding. Bob's advice might work for a quick snapshot, but for actually capturing the night sky properly, I'm sticking with the tripod.

scott.miles1mo ago

Man, I hear you. I've been there with the tripod setup, and it really does shine on a still night when you can let the shutter run for 20 seconds. That shot of the Milky Way you're talking about is something special, all that detail and color you just can't get with a quick snap. I know Bob's trick has its place when you're caught without gear, but it's just never going to match the real deal. I respect that you're sticking with what works best for the serious stuff.