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...

 

[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.

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/t...t_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

head: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._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/t..._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/t...t_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

head: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._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/t..._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.