What tripod do you use?

Status
Not open for further replies.
smoker

smoker

Striker
Just wondering what tripods (if any) people use and for what kit?

I am currently using a Manfrotto 055XB with 410 Junior Geared head. This usually holds my EOS 20D plus a wide lens, for star trails or landscapes.

Here it is set up for star-trails:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3549383913_9d0af3afb7_o.jpg

The tripod is rated up to 7kg, but I have recently started hanging an Astrotrac TT320X tracker and 486RC2 ball head on it, as well as a 180mm lens, and things are starting to get a bit wobbly. I've also tried putting a 3kg telescope on there and that is also pretty wobbly. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Slik 3325 Pro - anyone used one of these?
 


I bought a used Manfrotto 390 junior for about €30. Then I bought Velbon something-or-other for about €100 (had some vouchers to use up). It has loads more features than the Manfrotto, but the Manfrotto is just loads more sturdy.

Neither are great tbh.

EDIT - that's for a Nikon D2x which weights about 7 tonnes.
 
Manfrotto 725B. Budget end of the Manfrotto range but good for what I need it for. Light and small = doesnt get left behind !
 
Are there any half decent and sensibly priced lightweight tripods available these days?

I have been using an ancient Bell & Howell whilst it was never the most sturdy of tripods, I valued it for how lightweight it is as I can lug it everywhere with me. However, it has seen better days and could now do with replacement, so I thought I would ask Santa for a new one.

That said, looking around, all the full sized tripods seem to be obscenely expensive and also even the so called "lightweight" ones are heavier than my existing one (It weighs in at 1.1Kg including the head)

Sturdiness isn't my number one criteria (although I don't want anything which us flimsy and will break). Weight is the main criteria.

I do have a much sturdier Velbon which I use mainly for video, but that weighs a ton and only comes with me when I am in the car and not moving far from it!
 
Roger said:
Are there any half decent and sensibly priced lightweight tripods available these days?

I have been using an ancient Bell & Howell whilst it was never the most sturdy of tripods, I valued it for how lightweight it is as I can lug it everywhere with me. However, it has seen better days and could now do with replacement, so I thought I would ask Santa for a new one.

That said, looking around, all the full sized tripods seem to be obscenely expensive and also even the so called "lightweight" ones are heavier than my existing one (It weighs in at 1.1Kg including the head)

Sturdiness isn't my number one criteria (although I don't want anything which us flimsy and will break). Weight is the main criteria.

I do have a much sturdier Velbon which I use mainly for video, but that weighs a ton and only comes with me when I am in the car and not moving far from it!
Click to expand...

What weight of gear do you want it to carry Roger?

1.1kg is light in my book!
 
I was thinking the other day, tripods seem like a really old fashioned idea. Has there ever been anything released that was a big move forward in terms of design? I got mean stuff like the gorillapods, more something that's freestanding when erected, but much, much smaller when collapsed. Maybe something based around umbrella mechanics or summat.
 
smoker said:
What weight of gear do you want it to carry Roger?

1.1kg is light in my book!
Click to expand...

It is lightweight (aluminium), and I'd like something similar. It must be 30+ years old, but now it seems like that kind of weight falls into the exotic carbon fibre class with associated price tag.

Just looking to hold my 400D + lens and occasionally my panoramic head, no particularly heavy lenses so its all quite lightweight and I'm not looking for something that will stand up on its own on a windy day without extra weight hanging under it.

My existing one happily held my Zenit + lenses and I dread to think how heavy they were!
 
not spavin said:
I was thinking the other day, tripods seem like a really old fashioned idea. Has there ever been anything released that was a big move forward in terms of design? I got mean stuff like the gorillapods, more something that's freestanding when erected, but much, much smaller when collapsed. Maybe something based around umbrella mechanics or summat.
Click to expand...

Monopod, ground spike and a fuck off mallet. :)

RTGAdmin said:
It is lightweight (aluminium), and I'd like something similar. It must be 30+ years old, but now it seems like that kind of weight falls into the exotic carbon fibre class with associated price tag.

Just looking to hold my 400D + lens and occasionally my panoramic head, no particularly heavy lenses so its all quite lightweight and I'm not looking for something that will stand up on its own on a windy day without extra weight hanging under it.

My existing one happily held my Zenit + lenses and I dread to think how heavy they were!
Click to expand...

I'm biased towards Manfrotto but I would maybe check out their 190CX carbon fibre tripod. Rated up to 5kg and only 1.3kg. It's nearly 300 quid mind, but it's only money. :)
 
not spavin said:
I was thinking the other day, tripods seem like a really old fashioned idea. Has there ever been anything released that was a big move forward in terms of design? I got mean stuff like the gorillapods, more something that's freestanding when erected, but much, much smaller when collapsed. Maybe something based around umbrella mechanics or summat.
Click to expand...
chortle
 
I use a gorillapod copy from dealextreme ($12 posted!! with a 20mm ballhead £15 from ebay) and a Pro Fancier with ball head from ebay (manfrotto copy £35 delivered)
 
The Great Soprendo said:
This fella talks a lot of sense (on a wide variety of topics, but this particular but is about tripods):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm
Click to expand...

Meh. I always read Rockwell's reviews before buying lenses, but he talks a fair bit of shite too.

Those shots he posted are soft and / or noisy, which is exactly why digital ISO is not a replacement for a tripod. Not that I'd carry a tripod on a walkabout in a city at night like - there's plenty of street furniture that can be used as a stand-in tripod.
 
not spavin said:
Meh. I always read Rockwell's reviews before buying lenses, but he talks a fair bit of shite too.

Those shots he posted are soft and / or noisy, which is exactly why digital ISO is not a replacement for a tripod. Not that I'd carry a tripod on a walkabout in a city at night like - there's plenty of street furniture that can be used as a stand-in tripod.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in digital noise etc, but in a way it's a bit like the old adage that the best camera is the one you've got with you. If you're lugging a tripod around it seriously restricts your ability to react to photo opportunities. There are of course advantages to using tripods in terms of composition too, and for any kind of very long exposure, but it's certainly true that photographs you would in the past have needed a tripod for in low light to avoid camera shake (eg at 1/8 to 1/30 second) are much less likely to be problematic now due to higher ISOs and VR technology. And high ISO performance of digital sensors will probably continue to improve.

It's partly down to taste too - I'm pretty tolerant of small technical "weaknesses" like noise or softness (or film grain), if the image is arresting, and see them even as 'features' of an artistic medium (just like chisel marks in a sculpture, or brush strokes on an oil painting - it's not always about absolute technical perfection), and I reckon carrying a tripod probably reduces your likelihood of getting in the right place for the photo you want. Then again I don't make a living out of photography either, and am never likely to!
 
The Great Soprendo said:
I'm not an expert in digital noise etc, but in a way it's a bit like the old adage that the best camera is the one you've got with you. If you're lugging a tripod around it seriously restricts your ability to react to photo opportunities. There are of course advantages to using tripods in terms of composition too, and for any kind of very long exposure, but it's certainly true that photographs you would in the past have needed a tripod for in low light to avoid camera shake (eg at 1/8 to 1/30 second) are much less likely to be problematic now due to higher ISOs and VR technology. And high ISO performance of digital sensors will probably continue to improve.

It's partly down to taste too - I'm pretty tolerant of small technical "weaknesses" like noise or softness (or film grain), if the image is arresting, and see them even as 'features' of an artistic medium (just like chisel marks in a sculpture, or brush strokes on an oil painting - it's not always about absolute technical perfection), and I reckon carrying a tripod probably reduces your likelihood of getting in the right place for the photo you want. Then again I don't make a living out of photography either, and am never likely to!
Click to expand...

That's all true like, and carrying a tripod (even a light one) is a complete pain in the arse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top