I have been debating on getting a remote for my camera for awhile now, and they are pretty cheap, but I am wondering if they are "necessary" or a convenience. I will say it would be nice to shoot our personal family portraits without setting a timer and running like a crazy lady to get in the shot. And what kind do yall recommend? I was just browsing on amazon and I have no idea what I need for a remote... I will mostly use mine for family portraits and the occasional selfie-although rare, a remote would make that process a ton easier!
They definitely aren't necessary. They can be a very nice convenience though. For long exposures when you need a perfectly still camera, like you said family shots. They would be nice I imagine for portrait set ups in general. Just check your focus then you can direct your subjects and just snap. Not sure. I'd say why not...As you said they are a cheap luxury.
I love having one. My only recommendation would be to go with the OEM, not a generic model. My mom has a generic and I have the Nikon and she has so much trouble with hers. Oh, so does my SIL, she got a Nikon one and is much happier with it.
You'll be somewhat limited as to choice if you want a remote because you really need to buy the remote meant specifically for your camera. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, whatever you've got, you'll need to buy that brand remote. Stay away from the generic remotes; they often misfire and break easily.
I have Pocket Wizard remotes I use for my strobes and a cable that attaches one of them to my camera. It works flawless, but it's dang expensive. I'd only recommend this route if you take it absolutely seriously and have two off camera strobes as well.
They are more then convenience! There is so many more possibilities when using a remote, especially a wireless remote. If you're talking portraits, you can get better "spur of the moment" shots when the subject doesn't know your taking the shot. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, for long exposure it an absolute must for clarity. Another advantage I've found is wildlife. You can set up the camera in the garden and, with a wireless, you can go inside and wait for the subject to arrive.
Short answer: Definitely yes if you're an experimental sort who likes trying different techniques, probably yes anyway if you're less so.
Long answer: they open up a whole new array of possibilities. If you go for a wired one you don't just get the ability to stand in front of the camera for group photos (which then means you need a timer set on the camera and to not mind chucking your remote out of shot after firing it so the wire doesn't ruin everything, so I don't see this as the main benefit anyway), but it removes your hand from the camera. This is important for, say, "bulb" shots where you're on a tripod shooting the night sky for long durations, you don't have to worry about your hand holding the shutter release wobbling the camera. Similarly if you're setup on a tripod to get the perfect angle on some item in a light tent, perhaps, where you have a really fast shutter, you then don't have to be really delicate pressing the shutter so as not to blur everything up.
If you get this bad boy (comes in Nikon flavour too) you get a much better "stand in front of camera for group shots" ability, with no wire-chucking needed, plus all sorts of magic timing functions. I took this using mine, set to fire one shot every hour for 24 shots. You could also use it for some time delay video action (with the right software).
I use mine for most shots anyway (as long as I'm not holding the camera) just to eliminate shake. It's worth it for this alone.
I got a wireless one for Christmas and it's great. It also eliminated camera shake/wobble if you're using a slower shutter spped as even with a tripod you're likely to jostle the camera a little. Self portraits are loads easier - no more running to get in front of the lense, then going back to set the timer again. You can take several without moving, then look at a bunch. Definitely go fo it. :-)
SOOOO worth it. It's cheap enough that you shouldn't even think about it. I got a Nikon one for my Nikon D5000 and it just makes life so much easier. Plus it gives you the ability to get good family portraits so no one gets stuck taking the picture or running back and forth to be the 'beep'.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have Pocket Wizard remotes I use for my strobes and a cable that attaches one of them to my camera. It works flawless, but it's dang expensive. I'd only recommend this route if you take it absolutely seriously and have two off camera strobes as well.
Long answer: they open up a whole new array of possibilities. If you go for a wired one you don't just get the ability to stand in front of the camera for group photos (which then means you need a timer set on the camera and to not mind chucking your remote out of shot after firing it so the wire doesn't ruin everything, so I don't see this as the main benefit anyway), but it removes your hand from the camera. This is important for, say, "bulb" shots where you're on a tripod shooting the night sky for long durations, you don't have to worry about your hand holding the shutter release wobbling the camera. Similarly if you're setup on a tripod to get the perfect angle on some item in a light tent, perhaps, where you have a really fast shutter, you then don't have to be really delicate pressing the shutter so as not to blur everything up.
If you get this bad boy (comes in Nikon flavour too) you get a much better "stand in front of camera for group shots" ability, with no wire-chucking needed, plus all sorts of magic timing functions. I took this using mine, set to fire one shot every hour for 24 shots. You could also use it for some time delay video action (with the right software).
I use mine for most shots anyway (as long as I'm not holding the camera) just to eliminate shake. It's worth it for this alone.