Is an Expensive Tripod necessary?

[Daisy14'sDH]

Is an expensive tripod really necessary for every day shooting? I guess when you are using a tripod in most situations there is still light out and you are using a slower shutter speed so I understand the need for stability. But is the higher end tripod needed for shooting at WDW because of the surroundings? Inevitabally I'd expect people to trip and bump into the tripod there more than a quiet nature walk, lol.

I've read how the cheaper tripods react to the mirror or shutter release and vibrates through the frame, but is that noticable to the everyday tripod user?

I use a tripod thats solid metal and weighs close to 10 pounds (40 years old) and notice much better results than handheld at longer focal lengths, and slower shutter speeds.

Would I get results that much greater as a hobbyist?

 

[C&B Young]

Depending on what your shooting, any tripod is better than none. Doesn't necessarily have to be expensive, but it needs to be of a certain quality. Once your gear gets to be a certain weight the cheaper $20 tripods with all plastic heads won't do the job anymore.

 

[ssanders79]

If you are going for a deep depth of field (ie landscape shots) and shooting at high f-stops I would go with a tripod.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

No, it isn't. Once you get a tripod/head that can adequately support your camera and do a reasonable job resisting vibration, you're done as far as noticeable image quality improvements. Spending more money can save you weight, improve durability, and improve ergonomics. Image quality improvements will be very, very minimal unless you are out on the edge of what your tripod can support.

Improving technique (even on a tripod) will matter much more than improving your tripod. The biggest improvement comes from not touching your camera or tripod when you take a picture. Use a remote shutter release (cabled or wireless). For some exposures (longer than 1/30 second and shorter than 8 seconds), you will also see a small improvement by using the "mirror lockup" function on your camera or Live View. This is because the mirror that sends light up to the viewfinder snaps out of the way when you press the shutter. It vibrates the camera a bit and that adds a little blur to the picture. If your shutter speed is fast enough, you will "out run" the blur. If your shutter speed is slow enough, the vibration will be such a tiny part of the total exposure that it will be unnoticeable.

All of this assumes that your tripod is up to the task of supporting your camera. My personal opinion is that the super-cheap tripods that you see at places like WalMart or Best Buy don't do an acceptable job supporting a DSLR. They are much better than nothing, but you will see image quality differences moving up to the low end of the tripods honestly designed to support DSLRs.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

To get the nightshots, fireworks, etc., at WDW, I agree with the PP's that a tripod with remote is a necessity. The problem I ran into was finding a tripod I could travel by air with. My requirements were lightweight, stable to support my DSLR and would conveniently fit in my baggage. I knew this was not going to be an everyday use tripod. Several people recommended the Cullmann Magic 2. This tripod folded flat, weighs 2 1/2 lbs and measured 13" x 5" folded. It extends to 57" and also converts to a monopod. This is not an everyday tripod costing hundreds and hundreds of $'s. I think it is $140 with the ballhead included. FOR ITS STATED PURPOSE, IMHO it is the best. Of course with my tendency for overkill rotfl2, I also purchased the GorillaPod DSLR Zoom and hung it from my DW's bag!

PS and yes I do have one for the homefront that is a little more stable than my travel tripod.

 

[photo_chick]

Bouncing the camera when you push the shutter button can affect any tripod. True, some more than others, but using the remote or self timer is always a good idea.

 

[Bstanley]

Is an expensive tripod really necessary for every day shooting?

Depends on your definition of expensive I guess - I believe it takes at least $100 worth (see below).

Once you get a tripod/head that can adequately support your camera and do a reasonable job resisting vibration, you're done as far as noticeable image quality improvements. Spending more money can save you weight, improve durability, and improve ergonomics.

Exactly.

I purchased my first DSLR last October - A Rebel XS, which I think is about as light as a DSLR can be when fitted with it's kit lens. I already owned a typical lightweight 'Walmart' $30 tripod and while it worked sufficiently well for some good shots on a trip to WDW - it was noticeably flexible/wobbly and the 'head' did not really move smoothly (in any direction) so I decided to upgrade.

I purchased a $120 leg/head combo and the improvement was startling. It is aluminum so it weighs 3.5 pounds or so, but it doesn't twist or flex, the leg mechanisms are much stouter, it's can be extended further, and it offers more flexibility in how you can configure it. Plus the ball head is a dream to work with; silky smooth, built-in levels, easy to mount the camera on it (a 'snap close' mechanism), 360 degree markings for when you are shooting panoramas, etc. It definitely feels like it will support more camera/lens without any issues (it's rated at 8 pounds).

My experience - between $30 and $120 there was a quantum leap in performance. I wouldn't think that the improvement in performance would be that noticeable going more expensive, but I can imagine you could cut the leg weight in half with carbon fiber (seems to be about twice as expensive as aluminum) and maybe improve long term reliability in the ball head with some different materials.