Tripod suggestion

[zackiedawg]

The challenge for the original poster who is probably cowering in the corner wondering what on earth is happening to this thread, is to cut through the debate from enthusiasts and beginners alike and determine what budget they are willing to spend, and find the best tripod that fits their specific needs within that budget.

Part of the problem with any such thread as this, on a board such as this, is that you have this odd mix of complete beginners and snapshooters who just love Disney and take pictures of it, and serious enthusiasts who are photography lovers and semi-pros who happen to include Disney among their many photographic pursuits. Neither side takes the time to figure out the level of skill, need, or experience the original poster is coming from, and neither side seems capable of tailoring their recommendations to the skill and budget of that poster.

Much of this comes from not being able to 'see' outside what works for you - the same thing that causes the brand wars to get silly. Enthusiasts have determined that they need, or feel most comfortable with, a certain level of gear, so when someone asks for a blanket recommendation, they stick to the gear their own experience, skill, and need has guided them to - often higher-priced gear tuned to a more serious photographer, or tuned to a photographer with more budget to spend on such gear. Beginners on the other hand often have no experience with any gear outside the first one they bought - some were guided to that decision by fan and enthusiast threads, and now when asked for recommendations on gear, they put their choice out there as the best, sadly sometimes knocking other gear without any real experience or knowledge of it.

Stick those two groups together in the same thread, and fireworks ensue. More often than not, the best recommendation, or the truth for the original poster, lies somewhere in between. Let's put both recommendations together and see what happens:

"You don't need to buy an expensive tripod - cheap ones work just fine."
"Don't waste your money with the cheap tripods, as you'll only end up discovering down the road that you need a better one, so start with a fine, expensive tripod."

Now let's try to find an in-between recommendation that might work for the original poster's needs:

"Don't buy the cheapest tripods, as they can be of low quality and durability...but at the same time you probably don't need the 4-figure carbon-fiber professional tripods with gimbal heads...so consider a tripod in the $100-200 price range, where you can get decent build quality and durability along with lightness and compactness - pick the budget you're willing to spend, then buy the best tripod that fits your requirements within that budget".

 

[wbeem]

true, many of the 99% have no experience with $2,000 tripods
I have seen some amazing photos from those cheapo $100 tripods. I've even seen a good pic from a $20 walmart tripod, unbelievably as it may sound

Bob, you must have poor reading comprehension skills. I never said I have a $2000 tripod. I don't even know of a $2000 tripod on the market. What I said was that I've spent $2000 on DIFFERENT tripods until I finally got the right one.

That's OK, though. You keep flogging that dead horse. Maybe it'll get you over this imaginary line you've drawn in the sand about tripods and their value.

 

[wbeem]

Once again I agree with Mark. A flat rock and a timed release can make a great tripod in the right circumstances.

Good luck!

Yes, I've used a rock before, as well as a trash can. They work great if they're in just the right place and just the right angle to compose your shot. Most often, they're not just right. Then it becomes a real hassle to move said rock. That's why I prefer a lightweight carbon fiber tripod with a ball head. It opens a lot of potential.

 

[bob100]

What I said was that I've spent $2000 on DIFFERENT tripods until I finally got the right one.

I'm just glad I got the right one before spending $2,000 on tripods

 

[bob100]

What I said was that I've spent $2000 on DIFFERENT tripods until I finally got the right one.

I'm just glad I got the right one before spending $2,000 on tripods

 

[ssanders79]

I don't even know of a $2000 tripod on the market.

There was the Gitzo 90th Anniv Limited Edition. Only 390 were made and cost $2500.

 

[Shutterbug]

..... Only 390 were made and cost $2500.

Darn it no longer available! rats!


Anyway, I am throwing in my own .02 here.

As far as the very bottom end cheapo tripods from Kmart, Wallmart, Target .etc
I must have gone through half a dozen of those. Something was always breaking and it was always at the most inopportune time. So I would stay away from those. Heck I even had trouble with my low end Manfrotto tripod, the leg levers/clamps breaking. That one cost about 80 when I got it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If anyone is curious as to how someone could possibly spend so much money on a tripod, here is a pretty common example. Go out to a popular birding site like High Island down near Galveston and you'll see lots of cases just like this. These are people using 500mm, 600mm or even 800mm lenses, often with teleconverters on them. The heavy weight of the lens requires a strong tripod and the extreme mangificantion means that the slightest vibrations are magnified.

1. First, you need a strong set of legs. I've only seen two options in this "weight" class. You can go with the Gitzo 5 series tripods for about $825 or the new Really Right Stuff 3 Series tripods for about $925.
2. With a lens like this, you don't want a regular ballhead. If you use one and forget to tighten it down, very bad things will happen. Instead, you use a gimbal style head. The most popular by far seems to be the Wimberly head, which sells for about $600. when you properly balance your lens on the Wimberly head, it can move effortless in any direction (while following birds in flight), but balances in whatever position you leave it in (for watching birds in nests or preparing to fly).
3. You need an adapter plate to connect your lens to your tripod head. Really Right Stuff has them for about $100.
4. You probably shoot with lenses other than your big 600mm and you sometimes need a tripod head that you can lock down. That means that you'll want a good ballhead. Assuming that you want to use relatively large (70-200 f/2.8 or bigger) lenses and a large DSLR, a very popular head is the Really Right Stuff BH-55 for $450. You can save some money buy going to the more moderately priced BH-40 for $370 or one of the Acratech heads for about $400.
5. You'll also need a connector for your camera. For maximum flexibility, you'll want an L bracket so that you can shoot portrait or landscape. The price varies a lot based on your camera model, but $150 is a reasonable estimate.
6. You probably have at least one lens besides your 600mm that has a tripod foot. We'll assume that you have a 70-200. You'll need a plate for that to attach it to the tripod heads. That's another $50.

That's a pretty typical set of "tripod" gear owned by birder or wildlife photographers. I think we're at a bit over $2,100. Want a monopod and monopod head suited for use with your bigger lenses? Throw in another $540. Plan on shooting video and you want a smooth fluid head rather than those cheap friction heads? You're looking at about $750 more. Oh wait, you'll need a bowl adapter for your tripod, which will cost you another $80.

Want to do panos? You need to be able to adjust the lens so that it move's around it's nodal point. You can get a nice, stiff rail for a mere $200. If you really want to make taking multi-row pano taking easy, just buy the Omni-Pivot package for $900.

None of these items are "status" or "collectable" purchases like the limited edition Gitzo tripod mentioned earlier. These are tools bought by people with work to do or hobbies to enjoy. If photography is your passion and the type of shooting you do requires long, heavy lenses, this is where you will probably end up. It's not uncommon to see guys (it's usually guys) at birding sites with far more money in their camera gear than in the cars they drive to get to there. After dropping $8,000 or $10,000 or even $12,000 on a birding lens, the $2,100 of tripod gear seems like a bargain.

 

[Phil'sFrontier]

I don't think the OP can find a tripod that is cheap, light, folds small, and sturdy. I think if you want cheap and light, you aren't going to have something very sturdy.

I just bit the bullet right away and got me a nice manfrotto. It was between four and five hundred dollars. It is of good quality and will last a lifetime. I have already had it five years and it is like new still.
Whatever one you buy, I would look for quality.

 

[wbeem]

I'm just glad I got the right one before spending $2,000 on tripods

As I said, that's nice. This seems to be a topic that you want to keep beating around. All I wanted to do was suggest that the person give some thought as to what product would serve best down the road.

It's a shame you had to turn it into something else. Enjoy your rock.

 

[bob100]

After dropping $8,000 or $10,000 or even $12,000 on a birding lens, the $2,100 of tripod gear seems like a bargain.

yes, what's another $2,000 if you're spending $12,000 on one lens !

 

[My2Girls66]

Susan,
I have the TRAB069. It is an older model, but I am sure there is an equivelant version currently avaliable.

Is this similar to yours?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/738024-REG/Benro_A0690TBH00_A_0690_Travel_Angel_Aluminum.html
It looks like exactly what I need. Folds to 15", weighs 2.6lbs. I would like to be able to take it hiking/traveling with me. I have an inexpensive aluminum one that is very light but only folds down to 21", the weight is fine but it is too long for my backpack(hits me at the back of my head if I look up! )
I use a Nikon D80, mostly with an 18-135mm lens. Together they weigh 2.3lbs. With my heaviest lens, 70-300mmVr- 3.3lbs.

 

[cpbjgc]

Side steping the debate, I thought I would make a recommendation. I have a Velbon Sherpa 550r that I am quite happy with. While it does not fold down super small, it is fairly light to carry. I often do long exposures and night photography and this has worked really well for me. I have used it with a 70-200 lens with a teleconverter attached and have not had any shake or vibration problems.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

 

[Experiment_626]

I could see recommending a cheap tripod for initial use if you save for a better one while you use it. As I say, a cheap tripod is better than no tripod at all. I've had two or three cheap ones. They weren't/aren't* as sturdy as my current Manfrotto (which is hardly a big-ticket tripod -- it came as a kit with a ball head from B&H for less than $200), despite the "leg braces." They also weren't as versatile, as the legs wouldn't open any other angle than the braces would allow. With the Manfrotto, I can splay the legs out to the point the camera is just a few inches from the ground. And all my cheap ones suffered mechanical breakdowns. Some of those I was able to repair -- though one of them developed a serious fault at the start of a Disney trip. That sucked, though I could, with care, work around it for the most part.

Most people don't need a $2000 tripod. Most people who do need a tripod, however, would be better off spending more than $20.

* I still have one of the cheap ones. It can serve as a stand for a speedlight.

SSB