Tripod... do you use one more than 50% of the time??

[KarenAylwood]

I almost never use a tripod except to get night shots and fireworks. I went to a seminar over the weekend, and the photographers teaching it said they use their tripods 90-100% of the time, and it's important to invest in a good one.

I guess I knew this- for instance Bryan Peterson mentions in his books he always shoots with a tripod. I know all the professional photographers do it- but how often do the "good" amateurs? It seems like professionals hardly ever shoot handheld (other than wedding photography or something like that).

The idea I got was that you shouldn't cheap out on a tripod. But honestly I've never thought of spending much on one until now. Do you use one a lot? Do you see a big difference in sharpness even in broad daylight?

[Master Mason]

I use my tripod similar to you. I do use my monopod a lot when shooting sports.

[disneyboy2003]

I almost never use a tripod except to get night shots and fireworks. I went to a seminar over the weekend, and the photographers teaching it said they use their tripods 90-100% of the time, and it's important to invest in a good one.

I guess I knew this- for instance Bryan Peterson mentions in his books he always shoots with a tripod. I know all the professional photographers do it- but how often do the "good" amateurs? It seems like professionals hardly ever shoot handheld (other than wedding photography or something like that).

The idea I got was that you shouldn't cheap out on a tripod. But honestly I've never thought of spending much on one until now. Do you use one a lot? Do you see a big difference in sharpness even in broad daylight?

I was in your situation several months ago. I had read many times about the importance of buying a good tripod and not skimping on $$$ for a tripod. So when the time came for me to shell out money for tripod legs, it took me hours at the camera store debating how often would I really be using this tripod. I was struggling to convince myself that it would be money well spent, especially since I was already doing well with my current shooting style without a tripod.

For professionals, I think a tripod during the day is much more important than for us "regular folk". Because their goal is to get the best image quality for a particular scene, they'll bring their ISO down to 100 and bring their aperture down to around f/11 - f/16 or smaller. In addition, there may be filters involved as well, especially for folks taking photos of streams / water. All this may necessitate a slower-than-normal shutter speed during the day, thus requiring a tripod. I'm not sure if this would be the case during a bright sunny day (ie. the "sunny 16" rule says that you can use 1/100 sec shutter speed in this situation), but if you're shooting landscapes during the "golden hour" in the AM or PM, then a tripod would work best.

Or, if you're doing HDR, you'll want all 3-5 of your photos to be exactly aligned as much as possible--another reason for a tripod during the day.

At Disney World, I'm always on the run, so a tripod during the day would actually hinder my progress at the parks. Since I'm not trying to sell any of my Disney photos, as long as I can get good, sharp images handheld, then I'm pretty happy without my tripod during the day.

The only time I'd use a tripod during the day is if I'm trying to take a picture of me and my wife together in front of a scenic background. I'll set up a tripod and self-timer so I can be in the picture with her during the day.

So, to answer your question, I think I hardly use my tripod during the day, except maybe for a handful of photos. During the night, I'll use it a lot more, but not to the point where I'm stopping every 10 steps to set up another tripod shot...although my wife would strongly disagree...:rolleyes1

[C&B Young]

I'm also guilty of not using a tripod as often as I probably should. I did recently invest in a decent ballhead, which I hope will encourage me to shoot with a tripod more.

[WDWFigment]

No way. I don't feel guilty about it, either. That's their occupation, and as such, they try to be as good as they can (in a competitive field, no less) to get an edge on the competition. To me, using a tripod in all sorts of crowded situations in the park would take photography out of the realm of a fun thing to do while vacationing at WDW to moving beyond that into a more competitive realm reminiscent of work. The benefits to be gained from using a tripod in many circumstances at WDW don't outweigh the drawbacks, in my opinion.

[YesDear]

Many on this board know that a quality tripod and head is one of my issues. I get really frustrated to see thousands of dollars of cameras on a $50 tripod. You will not understand what I mean until you have destroyed your camera or lens when a leg crashes or it just tips over.

I realize that those that treat photography as a true occasional hobby, that you do not want to spend money for a quality tripod and head.

Here is a great article as to why you should (http://www.bythom.com/support.htm).

I own three tripods. One aluminum one that is 30 yrs old and I cannot kill.

I also own two carbon fiber tripods. Both are rated to hold a D300 and 70-200 plus. Both have heads that cost more than the tripods. One Arca Swiss and one RRS.

My newest one is really a travel one. It fits in my suitcase and easy to carry around the parks. It weighs less than 4lbs with the heard.

I guess my bottom line is buy the best you can afford.

If that is no much then stay very close to your camera!

[boBQuincy]

I do not use a tripod much during the day but I do use a monopod for many of my photos. Shutter speeds that are considered "safe" can still cause significant motion blur, especially with the increased enlargement we often use from smaller sensors. If we are taking a photo that we may wish to print in a large size then some form of camera support becomes even more important.

IS/VR may reduce the need for camera support but it is still best to stop the motion at it's source. I feel the difference between support/no support is visible even at shutter speeds following the old 1/focal length guideline.

I agree with YesDear that it is important to get a good tripod and an even better ballhead. A cheap tripod is a nuisance to set up, a cheap ballhead (or panhead) gets adjusted even more than the tripod and is quickly tiring. Cheap heads do not hold the camera securely, negating much of what we dragged a tripod along for in the first place. It is like driving a high performance car on cheap tires (which I don't do either). Spend the $$$, you (and your camera) will benefit from it..

[KarenAylwood]

Ok so these are sort of the answers I expected... and assumed a lot of people didn't use a tripod. And I guess, even though this is a Disney photography board I wasn't talking about photographing at Disney. I was more talking about photography in general- at Disney I wouldn't use a tripod unless it was for night photography just because it's a pain to carry around and set up with crowds.

That page that YesDear posted is a lot like what I expected from a professional or really serious photographer. But the question is.. do you really have to get a Gitzo? And do you really have to spend $1000 for a good tripod?

I was thinking of the following setup, but the total is only about $400:
tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

head: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6N0/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A3SPLR0MSOYZ8O&v=glance

Am I cheaping out?? Would I regret *only* spending $400?

This one is more expensive but it's 5.2lbs instead of 2.8lbs:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B001GIPR5S/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&v=glance

[Master Mason]

Ok so these are sort of the answers I expected... and assumed a lot of people didn't use a tripod. And I guess, even though this is a Disney photography board I wasn't talking about photographing at Disney. I was more talking about photography in general- at Disney I wouldn't use a tripod unless it was for night photography just because it's a pain to carry around and set up with crowds.

That page that YesDear posted is a lot like what I expected from a professional or really serious photographer. But the question is.. do you really have to get a Gitzo? And do you really have to spend $1000 for a good tripod?

I was thinking of the following setup, but the total is only about $400:
tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

head: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6N0/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A3SPLR0MSOYZ8O&v=glance

Am I cheaping out?? Would I regret *only* spending $400?

This one is more expensive but it's 5.2lbs instead of 2.8lbs:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B001GIPR5S/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&v=glance

I have the following

Slick 714 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/439929-REG/Slik_615_714_Pro_714_CF_II.html

And a Monfrotto 488 Ball Head (it is discontinued apparently but here is the replacement ) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660296-REG/Manfrotto_488_488_Midi_Ball_Head.html

Under $400 and I have been very very happy with it.

[boBQuincy]

I have the following

Slick 714 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/439929-REG/Slik_615_714_Pro_714_CF_II.html

And a Monfrotto 488 Ball Head (it is discontinued apparently but here is the replacement ) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660296-REG/Manfrotto_488_488_Midi_Ball_Head.html

Under $400 and I have been very very happy with it.

I have a very similar set of legs (somehow that just doesn't sound right), Velbon 640 CF, and a RRS BH-25 ballhead. This is probably close to $600, my thoughts are if you have to save $$$ somewhere don't let it be the ballhead.

[WDWFigment]

My setup, between tripod and ballhead was around $225. I guess I am not as "into" tripods as everyone else here.

There are two perspectives from which I think tripods can be viewed:

1) insurance - prevent loss of gear. In weighing the risk of loss actually happening along with the value of would be lost if it did, it is not efficient for me to spend more than that.

2) picture impact - two components here: height and sharpness. Height is the more important of the two for me, and my tripod is as tall as I need it to be. It probably could be slightly more stable, and thus slightly more sharp (however I have never noticed any sharpness issues), but I don't see the increased utility being greater than the increased cost. Since I don't have all of the lenses (or bodies) I'd like yet, my money is better spent on those components.

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

[Master Mason]

I have a very similar set of legs (somehow that just doesn't sound right), Velbon 640 CF, and a RRS BH-25 ballhead. This is probably close to $600, my thoughts are if you have to save $$$ somewhere don't let it be the ballhead.

Actually, I do agree, I wish I had a better ball head. The one that Mark had sort of made me drool a little.

But mine works fine for what I use it for.

[boBQuincy]

Btw Gregg, it seems you have been gone for awhile, welcome back! :)

[Master Mason]

Btw Gregg, it seems you have been gone for awhile, welcome back! :)

Thanks,

Yeah I haven't been around in a while. I was master of my lodge last year, and that took up a lot of time, add that to starting up my catering business, and there hasn't been much free time.

I've only been to Disney once 8 months even.

[handicap18]

2 Christmas' ago I broke down and spent some decent money on a tripod and ball head and spend $235. Manfrotto for both.

I think that if your just a hobbiest like most of us here you can easily get away with spending $225-350. I don't necessarily know if spending more than that is worth it. My tripod setup is rated to hold up to 9lbs of gear.

I use it for night shots (of which I do 3-4 per year in and around my area) and for portrait shoots. I do one portrait shoot at our local Down syndrome family playgroup once a year and I will take portrait shots of my kids 4 or 5 times a year. I'll use it a few times a year to get shots of the moon with my long lens (even though that lens has VR, having a tripod is just easier). I will also use it to video tape my wife's school concerts 2 or 3 times a year. Other times I'll use the tripod is to set up the video camera in times when I want to also take pictures, ie: birthdays, christmas, DS' baseball games.

After using the $30-50 tripods from Wal-Mart or Sears or other places like that for 20 or so years and having gone through 4 or 5 of them, I felt it was worth it to spend some extra money on one that is much more sturdy, has a much better built quality and will last for many many years. I feel more confident putting my equipment on this $235 setup than I ever had on the cheep-o setups. I would have liked to have spent a little more to get a slightly bigger tripod, but at the time I was VERY limited on my budget and actually went over it by about $25 which the family CFO (aka DW) wasn't to thrilled about.

In the end I'd have to echo what a few others have said,,, why put hundreds if not thousands of dollars of photo equipment on top of a $30 tripod. Get the best that you can afford, even if it is only a few hundred $$'s. Its worth it for the build quality and confidence you'll have in it. You'll get many many years out of it even it only gets used a few times a year. At least you'll know you'll always have something your confident in.

[KramBerries]

I use my tripod all the time. Most of that time, I use it to hold up the wall in my closet.

Seriously, it depends on the kind of shooting i'm doing. If I'm shooting portraits, I rarely use it because the freedom to move and adjust my shooting height is more valuable that the extra sharpness. If I'm shooting landscapes, I usually use one because I am often using smaller apertures and shooting in moderately low light. So for me, it is a question of whether the benefits of using the tripod outweight the costs of doing so. You'll find that landscapers and long lens shooters are pretty religious about using them and photo journalist/portrait shooters aren't.

As for what tripods or heads to buy, I have only one important piece of advice. I strongly advise people to get a head with an arca-swiss compatible clamp. That opens up a better selection of quick release clamps for your bodies and lenses and opens up the world of L-brackets.

The cool thing about tripods is that good ones last a lifetime, so you have a lot of time to recoup the cost. Like everything else photography related, you pay extra for brand name (i.e. at an equivalent price level, a Gitzo is typically not as good as a Bogen) and you face rapidly deminishing returns (a $500 tripod is typically better than a $200 tripod, but not by nearly as as a $200 tripod is compared with a $50 tripod). That being said, I buy expensive Gitzo CF tripods. My thought is that, while I don't typically take good pictures, with the right gear, I look like I'm taking good pictures. Isn't that what matters?

BTW, welcome back Gregg.

[Groucho]

I have the following

Slick 714 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/439929-REG/Slik_615_714_Pro_714_CF_II.html

And a Monfrotto 488 Ball Head (it is discontinued apparently but here is the replacement ) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660296-REG/Manfrotto_488_488_Midi_Ball_Head.html

Under $400 and I have been very very happy with it.
Similarly, I have the Slik Pro 713 CF II and am very happy with it. In fact, when I was doing my research, it was really the only tripod with the specs (height, weight, collapsed size) that I was looking for. The more expensive ones were all too short or too heavy. I would kind of prefer flip leg locks but that's not a huge deal. At the end of the day, it is completely competent and I am not looking for anything better. I might consider a lightweight travel one but I'd have to be sure that it could handle the weight.

I did cheap out a little on the ball head, a Bogen 484 with quick release, but it claims it'll hold 8.8 lbs and it generally is fine with whatever I've put on it. I may go to the next model up some day just to make everything that much more secure. Still, I've taken plenty of 30-second exposures at WDW with it and have never had any issues whatsoever with camera shake.

I got the tripod for maybe $210-220 new on eBay and the ball head was about $55 locally.

[Master Mason]

Similarly, I have the Slik Pro 713 CF II and am very happy with it. In fact, when I was doing my research, it was really the only tripod with the specs (height, weight, collapsed size) that I was looking for. The more expensive ones were all too short or too heavy. I would kind of prefer flip leg locks but that's not a huge deal. At the end of the day, it is completely competent and I am not looking for anything better. I might consider a lightweight travel one but I'd have to be sure that it could handle the weight.

I did cheap out a little on the ball head, a Bogen 484 with quick release, but it claims it'll hold 8.8 lbs and it generally is fine with whatever I've put on it. I may go to the next model up some day just to make everything that much more secure. Still, I've taken plenty of 30-second exposures at WDW with it and have never had any issues whatsoever with camera shake.

I got the tripod for maybe $210-220 new on eBay and the ball head was about $55 locally.

Actually your recomendation was what swayed me to the Slik. I liked the 714 better than the 713 because it folded smaller, was the reason for the difference.

[boBQuincy]

As for what tripods or heads to buy, I have only one important piece of advice. I strongly advise people to get a head with an arca-swiss compatible clamp. That opens up a better selection of quick release clamps for your bodies and lenses and opens up the world of L-brackets.


On that note, I have succesfully adapted a RRS quick release (their cheapest one) to an inexpensive Velbon ballhead so even if you don't have an arca-swiss compatible clamp it may not be too much work/$$$ to add one.
If KramBerries recommends it, it has to be good! ;)

[Shutterbug]

It all depends on situation, I was at car show on Tuesday. I only used my tripod for a few shots. There were just too many people around to have it set up. People would have been pumping into the legs.

When I am doing photos for my autocrossing club I dont use it either. Just too much shoot and go to next spot.

Only time I use it is for my landscape shots and only then when it may be cloudy out.

I do keep my tripod in the car just in case I need it for anything when I am out in about.

I just bought a Manfrotto 055XB. It was a tad heavier than what I wanted but should be okay for the most hiking I do.

[disneyboy2003]

I was thinking of the following setup, but the total is only about $400:
tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

head: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6N0/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A3SPLR0MSOYZ8O&v=glance

One piece of advice I'd recommend regarding the tripod legs is to make sure the legs extend the tripod to approximately your height. If you get a tripod that's too short, then you'll always be hunched over to look through your viewfinder, and that gets old pretty quickly.

Looks like the tripod legs you mentioned make the tripod height about 48 inches (4 feet). Sure, you can extend the center column up to make it 57.5 inches (almost 5 feet). But any time you depend on extending the center column up, it will make your camera set-up lots less stable.

So for tripod legs, look for the legs themselves to extend the tripod to approximately your height--maybe 6 inches shorter than your height to take into account the height of the ballhead and your camera. Go for tripod legs that have fewer leg sections for more stability (ie. 3 sections is better than 4 sections, which is better than 5 sections...).

Carbon fiber is all the rage these days because it's lightweight and more stable, but the downside is that it's pricier. You don't necessarily have to get Gitzo brand. Manfrotto and Slik are brand-names as well.

As for what tripods or heads to buy, I have only one important piece of advice. I strongly advise people to get a head with an arca-swiss compatible clamp. That opens up a better selection of quick release clamps for your bodies and lenses and opens up the world of L-brackets.

I also agree with the Arca-Swiss compatible clamps. These are the same clamps used by Really Right Stuff (http://reallyrightstuff.com/) (RRS). They make L-plates (or L-brackets) that are specific for your camera. There's a HUGE advantage of an L-plate vs a conventional plate. Let's say your camera's on the tripod in a standard landscape / horizontal orientation. If you want to quickly switch to a portrait / vertical orientation, you can unclamp your camera, and then clamp it back on in the portrait orientation very quickly.

http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/animation.gif

If you didn't have an L-plate, here's how you would take a picture in portrait orientation (from the RRS Web site):

http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/BH55LR-FLOP.gif

You'd have to position your ballhead so that it's exactly where the side notch is located, allowing you to turn the camera 90-degrees to portrait orientation. If the side notch just happens to be in the wrong place, then you'll have to spend time re-orienting your ballhead or tripod to get the notch in the exact position you need. You'll also notice that the camera / tripod set-up is now unbalanced or off-centered.

One thing I just wanted to emphasize again is that the L-plates from Really Right Stuff are molded specifically to your camera model's body. That means that the L-plate will fit very snugly onto your camera! Because of this, you don't run any risk of the camera or the L-plate wiggling around while attached to each other. A huge plus!

The downside to this, however, is that if/when you decide to buy a newer-model camera body, you'll have to buy a brand new L-plate for the new camera. For example, the L-plate for the Canon 40D will not fit on the Canon 50D, so you'd have to spend another $140 for a separate L-plate for the 50D.

I can't believe how pricey this whole tripod / ballhead set-up can be. You can easily spend more $$$ on a ballhead than some people spend on their point-and-shoot cameras! :sad2:

[KarenAylwood]

Ok... so I mostly like landscapes, and would like to be one of those "tripod photographers" I guess. I'd like to be a little more focused with my photography- right now I tend to snap snap snap and take tons of pictures and then go through them later, rather than focusing on what I'm doing.

One of my other problems is spending money on photography equipment. When I first went to buy my camera I was going for a Nikon D40 but the Canon XSi was rated the best at the time so I went with that (and the bag kit w/ extra battery that goes with it)... leaving with almost $300 more stuff than I planned, but still to this day I'm more than pleased. When I went to get a prime I was going to spend $90 on the nifty fifty until I saw the Sigma 30 and *had* to have it... spending $250 more than I was prepared. Again- ended up being a great decision for me.

Now, looking at tripods and ballheads I started looking at something somewhat reasonable... and it gradually has come to this. Tell me if I'm crazy for wanting this setup (total is just under $700 incl shipping charges)

Head: http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/Q3.php (plate will cost $50)
Tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Bag: http://www.amazon.com/Think-Tank-Attaches-Backpacks-Security/dp/B0016XDWKK/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1264091576&sr=8-2-fkmr1

[KarenAylwood]

One piece of advice I'd recommend regarding the tripod legs is to make sure the legs extend the tripod to approximately your height. If you get a tripod that's too short, then you'll always be hunched over to look through your viewfinder, and that gets old pretty quickly.

Looks like the tripod legs you mentioned make the tripod height about 48 inches (4 feet). Sure, you can extend the center column up to make it 57.5 inches (almost 5 feet). But any time you depend on extending the center column up, it will make your camera set-up lots less stable.

So for tripod legs, look for the legs themselves to extend the tripod to approximately your height--maybe 6 inches shorter than your height to take into account the height of the ballhead and your camera. Go for tripod legs that have fewer leg sections for more stability (ie. 3 sections is better than 4 sections, which is better than 5 sections...).

Carbon fiber is all the rage these days because it's lightweight and more stable, but the downside is that it's pricier. You don't necessarily have to get Gitzo brand. Manfrotto and Slik are brand-names as well.





The downside to this, however, is that if/when you decide to buy a newer-model camera body, you'll have to buy a brand new L-plate for the new camera. For example, the L-plate for the Canon 40D will not fit on the Canon 50D, so you'd have to spend another $140 for a separate L-plate for the 50D.

I can't believe how pricey this whole tripod / ballhead set-up can be. You can easily spend more $$$ on a ballhead than some people spend on their point-and-shoot cameras! :sad2:

I'm only 5'4'' but thank you- I didn't realize this only went to 4 feet. I'll have to keep looking at legs. I want something that will be tall enough for me but still very light. I have the L plate thing in mind... and do want to upgrade to Canon 50D but I would have to buy a new plate for that... although I'm spending a bunch on a camera, I might as well.

(you posted this as I was writing mine!)

[WDWFigment]

Ok... so I mostly like landscapes, and would like to be one of those "tripod photographers" I guess. I'd like to be a little more focused with my photography- right now I tend to snap snap snap and take tons of pictures and then go through them later, rather than focusing on what I'm doing.

One of my other problems is spending money on photography equipment. When I first went to buy my camera I was going for a Nikon D40 but the Canon XSi was rated the best at the time so I went with that (and the bag kit w/ extra battery that goes with it)... leaving with almost $300 more stuff than I planned, but still to this day I'm more than pleased. When I went to get a prime I was going to spend $90 on the nifty fifty until I saw the Sigma 30 and *had* to have it... spending $250 more than I was prepared. Again- ended up being a great decision for me.

Now, looking at tripods and ballheads I started looking at something somewhat reasonable... and it gradually has come to this. Tell me if I'm crazy for wanting this setup (total is just under $700 incl shipping charges)

Head: http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/Q3.php (plate will cost $50)
Tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Bag: http://www.amazon.com/Think-Tank-Attaches-Backpacks-Security/dp/B0016XDWKK/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1264091576&sr=8-2-fkmr1

I have no experience with that tripod gear, but where I'd caution you here is in comparing it to your past experiences. In the past, you opted to purchase something better than entry level. The difference here, as another poster pointed out, is that you'll have diminishing returns. Whereas an XSi might be 1.5 times as good as a D40 (just making up that number) and also cost 1.5 times the amount, it is unlikely that a $700 tripod is over 3 times better than a $200 tripod, despite costing over 3 times the amount. Similarly, a D3x probably isn't 3 times better than a D700 (at least not to most people). The differences are most noticeable to those who do this for a living, and are most demanding of the gear they own. Then, those diminishing returns are more acceptable (in my opinion).

I'm just saying that my personal opinion is that unless financial resources are no object, I would sooner allocate funds to having a well rounded camera bag rather than shooting for the stars on the tripod right away and neglecting other important elements of a well-rounded bag.

Again, just my two cents.

[disneyboy2003]

Now, looking at tripods and ballheads I started looking at something somewhat reasonable... and it gradually has come to this. Tell me if I'm crazy for wanting this setup (total is just under $700 incl shipping charges)

Head: http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/Q3.php (plate will cost $50)
Tripod: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0015MFTE4/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

I almost hesitate to throw this out there, since it sounds like you've already exceeded your initial budget. I struggled with the same thing, too, for a long long time until I finally bit the bullet.

In case you were interested in the Really Right Stuff (RRS) brand, here's the ballhead I would recommend: the BH-40 LR (here's the link (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=BH-40-LR&eq=)). The price is $375. And I already mentioned the price of the L-plates earlier.

The regular plates (non-L-plates) from RRS are $55--almost similar in price to the ones your manufacturer is offering. The regular plates are long and cover the entire base of your DSLR camera, not just a small square portion of the camera. (the "Conventional" plate in the photo below is the one I'm talking about)

http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/plate-styles.gif

I first heard about RRS from Scott Kelby's books, magazines, and blog, and he'd always rave about their ballheads. As I was reading about tripods on other message boards, RRS was frequently recommended over and over and over again whenever anyone asked about ballheads. I also found it very hard to find a used BH-40 LR ballhead online, or if I did, they were either snatched up very quickly or resold at close to retail price.

When I finally held one in my hand, I was amazed at the quality of their ballheads...and this is coming from someone who knows zero about tripods / ballheads.

The L-plate also feels like they're made of steel--nice, firm, well-polished metal--and it fits snugly on my DSLR.

RRS makes a quick-release clamp for their ballhead. The ballhead you mentioned as a screw-knob clamp. Here are pictures of the difference:

http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/LR-onBH40.gif http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/mAS-onBH40.gif

As the name implies, the quick-release clamp makes it so much faster and convenient to attach your camera to the ballhead. The lever on the clamp switches to the fully-open position in one quick move, allowing you to top-load your camera into the ballhead clamp.

The screw-knob clamp will take extra time to insert and remove your camera from the clamp. With each turn of the screw-knob, you slowly open the clamp. If you don't want to take the extra few seconds to open the clamp all the way, you can insert / remove the camera from the clamp by sliding the camera plate in & out of the partially-open clamp. Trying to insert a camera plate into a partially-open clamp is like putting a key into a keyhole. You'll have to align it just-right so that the plate goes right in. (I hope you can picture what I'm describing)

For more information about their quick-release clamps and how they compare to screw-knob clamps, here's the link to their Web page (more detailed-information in the middle of the page): http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/03.html

If nothing else, the Really Right Stuff Web site (link (http://reallyrightstuff.com/)) has a lot of great general information about ballheads, clamps, and plates.

Sorry to make your tripod decision even more pricey than you'd initially expected. WDWFigment is right, though. At some point, you have to determine whether all this convenience and features is worth the extra $$$. However, if you figure that you're going to be using this a lot, especially for your landscape photography, then this is really an investment that'll last a lifetime (unlike camera bodies, which seem to only last a few years before you "need" an upgrade).

Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there as another possibility. :)

[KarenAylwood]

Whereas an XSi might be 1.5 times as good as a D40 (just making up that number) and also cost 1.5 times the amount, it is unlikely that a $700 tripod is over 3 times better than a $200 tripod, despite costing over 3 times the amount. Similarly, a D3x probably isn't 3 times better than a D700 (at least not to most people). The differences are most noticeable to those who do this for a living, and are most demanding of the gear they own. Then, those diminishing returns are more acceptable (in my opinion).


That's a really good point and a better way for me to look at it. And honestly I'm not sure if a $700 tripod is really three times better than a $200 one (although I can guess it isn't). I like the way you explained it!

I almost hesitate to throw this out there, since it sounds like you've already exceeded your initial budget. I struggled with the same thing, too, for a long long time until I finally bit the bullet.


When I finally held one in my hand, I was amazed at the quality of their ballheads...and this is coming from someone who knows zero about tripods / ballheads.

The L-plate also feels like they're made of steel--nice, firm, well-polished metal--and it fits snugly on my DSLR.

RRS makes a quick-release clamp for their ballhead. The ballhead you mentioned as a screw-knob clamp. Here are pictures of the difference:


Sorry to make your tripod decision even more pricey than you'd initially expected. WDWFigment is right, though. At some point, you have to determine whether all this convenience and features is worth the extra $$$. However, if you figure that you're going to be using this a lot, especially for your landscape photography, then this is really an investment that'll last a lifetime (unlike camera bodies, which seem to only last a few years before you "need" an upgrade).

Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there as another possibility. :)


Um... thanks? ARGH! Now you really are making me want to spend more money right after I was thinking "well yeah, what WDWFigment says makes a lot of sense" :rotfl: To be honest though, your posts are incredibly helpful and I appreciate all the images as well! That ball head looks great- and I didn't even think about how the Q3 didn't have a quick release plate. I decided I definitely want a ballhead and I'm going to look more into the RRS brand.

What do you recommend for tripod legs? I want carbon fiber and I'm 5'4'' so I don't need anything super tall, but I'd like something that stood as tall as me, and is very light. If I'm actually going to get use out of this thing, it has to be light enough for me to carry without being a burden.

Do you recommend that bag I posted? It looks really cool and pretty highly rated. If I'm spending however many hundreds of dollars I'd like to protect what I purchased!

Also, somewhat related... I just got a 6.7% raise yesterday at work (with the potential for another in April!)... so shelling out for a CF tripod and the Canon 24-105 f/4L is starting to sound much more appealing!!! :banana: Of course the responsible thing to do would be to save... but what's the fun in that? :rotfl:

[WDWFigment]

Not sure if this is any good...but might be worth researching:
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1824245

[mom2rtk]

Many thanks for starting this discussion on tripods. I've been considering upgrading. Although I can't spend a fortune, I do want better than what I can find in stores. This discussion really does help me understand what sorts of things I should be looking for.

I looked at the one WDW Figment just linked, but am not ready to buy yet. I tend to use mine most at Disney and really want something lightweight. Any suggestions on something lightweight that folds fairly small but still offers some pretty decent height? (Also, can you recommend a camera for under $100 that will take good low light actions shots???? :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:).

[WDWFigment]

Many thanks for starting this discussion on tripods. I've been considering upgrading. Although I can't spend a fortune, I do want better than what I can find in stores. This discussion really does help me understand what sorts of things I should be looking for.

I looked at the one WDW Figment just linked, but am not ready to buy yet. I tend to use mine most at Disney and really want something lightweight. Any suggestions on something lightweight that folds fairly small but still offers some pretty decent height? (Also, can you recommend a camera for under $100 that will take good low light actions shots???? :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:).

This is what I use: http://www.amazon.com/Velbon-Aluminum-Release-Panhead-Supports/dp/B000WMGPB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263780621&sr=1-1

I may not be good because I don't use a fancy tripod, but I'm satisfied with what it's done for me.

I carry it around with me all day everyday at the 'World. Here is a picture of it attached to my bag: http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16963_550119644069_40800082_32222278_844723_n.jpg (I have since upgraded to a Manfrotto ballhead - 486RC2). You could probably find the Luxi someplace cheaper.

Hope that helps.

[mom2rtk]

This is what I use: http://www.amazon.com/Velbon-Aluminum-Release-Panhead-Supports/dp/B000WMGPB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263780621&sr=1-1

I may not be good because I don't use a fancy tripod, but I'm satisfied with what it's done for me.

I carry it around with me all day everyday at the 'World. Here is a picture of it attached to my bag: http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16963_550119644069_40800082_32222278_844723_n.jpg (I have since upgraded to a Manfrotto ballhead - 486RC2). You could probably find the Luxi someplace cheaper.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Tom! I think that one looks like a possibility. I just want to compare the weight to my current one so there are no surprises. I usually have a bunch of other stuff I'm carrying around the parks so I don't want to add weight if I don't have to. Of course, I may find anything lighter weight is more money than I want to spend. I just need to find the right balance.

[BorisMD]

I picked up a Manfrotto 190XB tripod and 486RC2 from BH photo/video about 1-2 years ago.

I've found it is more than adequate for the shooting that I do. It didn't cost more than $180 for both pieces.

I'm sure I could get much higher quality for more $$, but I've done plenty of 30 sec exposures and had very good results.

As they say, YMMV,


Regards,

Boris

[Groucho]

I just don't understand the prices paid for some of these things. :confused3 OK, so let's say I'm shooting with 4 lbs of camera gear (probably less if you're using a wide lens for landscape shots.) Now, while the ultrapricey RSS/etc ballheads are stuff are probably works of art - honestly, are they going to work better than the $50 Bogen? Is it really worth $140 (per camera!) to not have to put your camera sideways on the tripod? OK, if you are a pro whose camera is always on a tripod and you shoot in portrait a lot, sure. But for me - $140 for a bent piece of metal (L-bracket), $55 for a straight piece of metal (plate), or several hundred for a metal ball and a metal clamp around it (ballhead) seems outlandish to me.

IMHO, this is completely different than comparing cheap vs expensive lenses. You are generally going to get exactly the same stability with $250-300 of tripod gear as you will with $1,000 worth. You pay for a little bit (emphasis on "little" until I'm really missing something here!) extra convenience and a lot for the name. There should be no difference in the resulting photos.

Am I bonkers for feeling no desire whatsoever to get some of this high-end stuff? I'm sure the tripods snobs will look down on me as one of the unwashed hoi polloi, but what the hey. :)

[WDWFigment]

I just don't understand the prices paid for some of these things. :confused3 OK, so let's say I'm shooting with 4 lbs of camera gear (probably less if you're using a wide lens for landscape shots.) Now, while the ultrapricey RSS/etc ballheads are stuff are probably works of art - honestly, are they going to work better than the $50 Bogen? Is it really worth $140 (per camera!) to not have to put your camera sideways on the tripod? OK, if you are a pro whose camera is always on a tripod and you shoot in portrait a lot, sure. But for me - $140 for a bent piece of metal (L-bracket), $55 for a straight piece of metal (plate), or several hundred for a metal ball and a metal clamp around it (ballhead) seems outlandish to me.

IMHO, this is completely different than comparing cheap vs expensive lenses. You are generally going to get exactly the same stability with $250-300 of tripod gear as you will with $1,000 worth. You pay for a little bit (emphasis on "little" until I'm really missing something here!) extra convenience and a lot for the name. There should be no difference in the resulting photos.

Am I bonkers for feeling no desire whatsoever to get some of this high-end stuff? I'm sure the tripods snobs will look down on me as one of the unwashed hoi polloi, but what the hey. :)

I agree with you absolutely. Usually I have to add some sort of caveat when I agree with something, but here, every single word you wrote rings true. I guess we both aren't very good at this photography thing. :confused3

[KramBerries]

Is it really worth $140 (per camera!) to not have to put your camera sideways on the tripod? OK, if you are a pro whose camera is always on a tripod and you shoot in portrait a lot, sure. But for me - $140 for a bent piece of metal (L-bracket), $55 for a straight piece of metal (plate), or several hundred for a metal ball and a metal clamp around it (ballhead) seems outlandish to me.

That's an easy question for most people to answer. How often do you shoot on a tripod in portrait mode? How much would it be worth it to you to have the full flexibility of your ball head in portrait mode? How often do you switch between portrait and landscape mode while using a tripod? Thinking about that, how much would it be worth it to you? My guess is that different people would answer anywhere from $0 to well over $1,000. For the people answering less than $150, buying an L bracket isn't worth it. For people answering more, it is. Personally, I'd pay well over $150, so I'm getting quite a bargain with an L bracket. I'm sure that if we compared each others spending, we'd find lots of areas where our priorities for spending are very different.

I just don't understand the prices paid for some of these things. :confused3 OK, so let's say I'm shooting with 4 lbs of camera gear (probably less if you're using a wide lens for landscape shots.) Now, while the ultrapricey RSS/etc ballheads are stuff are probably works of art - honestly, are they going to work better than the $50 Bogen?

IMHO, this is completely different than comparing cheap vs expensive lenses. You are generally going to get exactly the same stability with $250-300 of tripod gear as you will with $1,000 worth. You pay for a little bit (emphasis on "little" until I'm really missing something here!) extra convenience and a lot for the name. There should be no difference in the resulting photos.

Am I bonkers for feeling no desire whatsoever to get some of this high-end stuff? I'm sure the tripods snobs will look down on me as one of the unwashed hoi polloi, but what the hey. :)

You aren't bonkers at all. You, others that don't buy tripods, others that buy cheaper tripods, and others that buy more expensive tripods are all probably pretty rational. Like I say over and over, spending more on camera gear leads to rapidly diminishing returns.

I once had a relatively inexpensive Bogen aluminum tripod. It was serviceable, but when the top plate cracked, I replaced it with a much more expensive Gitzo CF tripod. I did so for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with impressing other people with the brand name of my tripod. Instead of little hooks on each leg which constantly caught on my gear, the Gitzo had twist locks. These were quicker and easier to use. The CF weighed considerably less. It was much less cold to hold when it is cold outside. It had an articulating center column which was great for times when I wanted to position my camera someplace different from directly over the legs. It also allowed me to lock the tripod legs at angle that I wanted. Would the differences be worth the extra cost to you? Possibly, but probably not. They were to me.

I went through a similar process when I bought my ball head. I'm going to buy another ball head soon and will probably pay $400. I've looked at the various ball heads on the market and have decided that it has the right combination of weight, durability, features, load capacity, and freedom from drift. It's worth it to me, but it would be a stupid way for my sister (a less frequent tripod user with smaller gear and a smaller budget) to spend her money.

I know someone with a $900+ tripod. I've borrowed it from him several times. I have a much cheaper tripod. After using his for a while, I've decided to buy one similar to his. He bought his for using with a 600mm lens. There just aren't that many tripods that will hold a load like that stable and not weigh a ton. I want one for occasional use of long lenses but also for videography. I used his tripod and my tripod for shooting videos and when zoomed in at the equivalent of 450mm shooting HD, there is a noticeable difference. And that is indoors without wind.

I'm willing to spend more dollars for fewer benefits on a tripod than I am on a camera body. Reasonably good tripods last a very long time, so there is a lot of time to get a return on your investment. Lenses tend to get superseded a bit more quickly. I change camera bodies every 2-4 years, so I need a much quicker return to make it worthwhile.

I agree with you absolutely. Usually I have to add some sort of caveat when I agree with something, but here, every single word you wrote rings true. I guess we both aren't very good at this photography thing. :confused3

I don't think it has anything to do with being good or bad at photography. Assuming that a person buys a tripod and head that does a reasonably good job of supporting their equipment, it just comes down to how much the incremental gains are worth to you. There is a reason why there is a market for all these different levels of gear.

[WDWFigment]

I don't think it has anything to do with being good or bad at photography. Assuming that a person buys a tripod and head that does a reasonably good job of supporting their equipment, it just comes down to how much the incremental gains are worth to you. There is a reason why there is a market for all these different levels of gear.

My statement was meant to be very tongue in cheek based upon my perception of what some other posters were saying and an earlier linked article.

...I think you forgot to switch accounts before posting. ;)

[boBQuincy]

I just don't understand the prices paid for some of these things. :confused3 OK, so let's say I'm shooting with 4 lbs of camera gear (probably less if you're using a wide lens for landscape shots.) Now, while the ultrapricey RSS/etc ballheads are stuff are probably works of art - honestly, are they going to work better than the $50 Bogen? Is it really worth $140 (per camera!) to not have to put your camera sideways on the tripod? OK, if you are a pro whose camera is always on a tripod and you shoot in portrait a lot, sure. But for me - $140 for a bent piece of metal (L-bracket), $55 for a straight piece of metal (plate), or several hundred for a metal ball and a metal clamp around it (ballhead) seems outlandish to me.



You drive a really nice sports car. Will a cheap Chinese torque wrench and socket tighten the bolts as accurately as Snap-On or Craftsman? Will tires with a rating of B for traction and temperature handle as well as Michelin Pilot Sports? Will store-brand 10w-30 lubricate the engine as well as Mobil 1? The answer is "maybe", or even "usually", but sometimes it is "no, not as well".

From my experience with cheap, mid-priced, and high-end tripods and heads it is the same: we usually pay a lot more for a little more performance. It is worth it to me in most cases but for those with less demanding needs (or perceived needs) it is probably overkill and overpriced.

[WDWFigment]

You drive a really nice sports car. Will a cheap Chinese torque wrench and socket tighten the bolts as accurately as Snap-On or Craftsman? Will tires with a rating of B for traction and temperature handle as well as Michelin Pilot Sports? Will store-brand 10w-30 lubricate the engine as well as Mobil 1? The answer is "maybe", or even "usually", but sometimes it is "no, not as well".

From my experience with cheap. mid-priced, and high-end tripods and heads it is the same: we usually pay a lot more for a little more performance. It is worth it to me in most cases but for those with less demanding needs (or perceived needs) it is probably overkill and overpriced.

I agree with what you're saying, and I think my posts reflect that, but I what I am saying is that you should focus on a well rounded camera bag before going all out and getting some $1,000 tripod.

Surely you wouldn't buy Michelin Pilot Sports tires (with the intent to someday get a sports car...maybe) when you're driving a 1989 Honda Civic. That's just impractical. If you're still shooting with an entry level camera and a kit lens (not saying anyone here is, I'm just trying to put perspective on the discussion), the gains to be had from moving up with regard to lenses and the camera body are, in my opinion, substantially greater than the gain to be had from going from a $200 tripod to a $600-1000 tripod (now this obviously doesn't apply to Groucho with his collection of 847 lenses, but it's useful advice for others reading). Why not allocate that money where it most effectively enables you to improve your photography? Of course if you're like Mr. Berries or others, and money is no object, get the best of the best.

Additionally, I don't think that any argument that tripods hold their value better than camera bodies holds any water. We may justify our spending habits based on this, but isn't photography a hobby, not an investment plan?

[boBQuincy]

If you're still shooting with an entry level camera and a kit lens (not saying anyone here is, I'm just trying to put perspective on the discussion), the gains to be had from moving up with regard to lenses and the camera body are, in my opinion, substantially greater than the gain to be had from going from a $200 tripod to a $600-1000 tripod...

Guilty there, I perch my Rebel Xsi and 18-55 on a $600 tripod *with* a RRS L-plate! :)

Additionally, I don't think that any argument that tripods hold their value better than camera bodies holds any water. We may justify our spending habits based on this, but isn't photography a hobby, not an investment plan?

Not guilty here, I buy very little as an investment, mostly it is to use and enjoy what I have bought. My camera purchases remind me of a friend with many motorcycles, his motto is "motorcycles are to buy, not to sell"! ;)

[dmccarty]

Do I use my tripod 50% of the time? Depends on the definition of "time." :lmao:

If "time" is right now over the last couple of weeks or even months then I have not touched my tripod so the answer would be 0%. Over the last three weeks I have been taking photos of kids basketball and have taken 1600+ images. The tripod was left at home. :)

On the other hand last spring I used the tripod to take some macro images of Cedar Rust. In that case "time" was only an hour or so. :lmao: Cedar Rust is in Cedar trees. ;) But it also causes damage to Apple trees/fruit. In the spring when it is cool but not cold and wet it pops out on some trees. Kinda looks like orange gummy bears gone wrong. ;)

http://picasaweb.google.com/demccarty/DISBoard#5328641149861120002

Without a tripod and a remote release I could not have taken the series of photos.

Back in the 90s I was shooting lots of flowers and used the tripod close to 100% of the time. If I am doing landscapes then the tripod and the remote shutter release is used. If you use a tripod you need a remote shutter release as well.

I usually take the tripod to WDW but have yet to use it. I did take a Gorilla Pod on the last two trips but never got a chance to use it either.

I have a Benbo not Benro tripod. It is heavy and built like a tank. It is very nice in that it will extend over 6 feet tall which I have use but it can also be configured to hold the camera just off the ground for close up shots of small flower, fungi, etc. It is very versatile. It is HEAVY. Which I think is a good thing in a tripod. But I am a big enough to pack around a heavy tripod. However I can see paying for a light weight tripod if one is moving around a lot outdoors. Its going to depend on the person and what they can physically do.

When I bought the Benbo it came with a ball head. I should have replaced it years ago. It was just fine if the camera was oriented for a landscape shot but for a portrait the ball head would slip ever so slightly. I got good at taking the slippage into account when framing a shot. ;) PITA. I lived with this for a decade or more and finally bought a decent ball head. I think it is a Manfrotto and I kick my self for not buying it earlier. Once the QR(quick release) locked into the ball head the camera is not moving anywhere. VERY secure. And no slippage when framing a photograph.

I bought a cheap Velbron tripod when I was in college too many years ago. I got some great photos with the tripod but it was junk. Taking photos of sunrises on the beach with a strong wind was a PITA with that Velbron. It was too light and would not brace up tightly. But it is all I could afford.

NAS or in this case TAS is a real problem. :rotfl2: But one does not have to have the "best", whatever that means, gear to take great images.

Later,
Dan

[KramBerries]

Thom Hogan has some good tripod advice here: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm. It is geared towards wildlife, landscape and other people that have a heavy reliance on their tripods.

[MarkBarbieri]

Well, all this talk about tripods got me going. I bought a new one today. Actually, I bought a tripod (TVC-33 (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=TVC-33)), ball head (BH-55 (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=BH-55&eq=&Tp=)), quick release clamp (B2 AS II (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=B2-AS-II-1%2F4-20&eq=)), two lens plates (L84 (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=L84&eq=B86-006&Tp=) and B61 (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=B61&eq=&Tp=)), and a carrying bag (TQB-80 (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=TQB-80&eq=&Tp=)). I checked my lenses and found that none of them fit the B61 plate, so I ordered a lens for that plate as well. I think I heard my credit card weeping.