I want/need a tripod!

[AutumnJazz]

I can really only spend a maximum of $130. I'd like something somewhat light, so that I'll actually carry it around and not leave it sitting at home. A sholder strap is a must, and the smaller it can collapse the better (I like to go into NYC on packed trains). It's fine if it's used.

So, does anyone have any recomendations? I don't really know what constitutes a good tripod. Stability (weight) and ease of use, I'd think.

Thanks to all that waste their time reading this thread.

 

[weasel]

What sort of camera/lens are you wanting to put on it?

 

[AutumnJazz]

I use a Nikon F100 with a 24-120mm VR lens. I do alright hand-held in daylight, but I'd like a tripod so I can...Well, I don't really know why I need a tripod. Just to have one?

I can't really think of a reason. Maybe I should just get that 50mm 1.8D lens instead...

 

[Nicole]

I'd try to do without, save money and extra luggage. Use faster film if necessary. Otherwise consider a monopod.

 

[PhotoJim]

Light, cheap, good - pick two.

If you want solid and light, a carbon fibre tripod will be great. Expect to pay several hundred dollars.

There are some decently cheap, good tripods like the Manfrotto 099C (and its US equivalent by Bogen which I leave as an exercise to the reader) that will fit your budget, but are not particularly lightweight.

There are some really cheap light tripods on the market that are not particularly stable.

To me, stability is the #1 criterion for a tripod. It is designed to keep your camera stable. I recommend you decide which other criterion you can most live without - low price or light weight.

 

[John Koehrer]

See if you can find a used tiltall should be less than $100.
I got my last one for $30. Many people use them for view cameras too.

 

[Jarvman]

I'm after a new tripod as well. Thought it'd be daft to start a new thread. At the moment I'm using a very basic Cobra somethingorother. It's been fine up until now but after buying a fuji g617 I don't want to take the risk of perching it on something so precarious. I'm looking at a manfrotto/gitzo, does anybody have any advice what'd be the best tripod to go for using this camera?

 

[Andy K]

If I'm 'out and about' shooting, and not going to do anything preplanned, I take my Gorillapod SLR Zoom with a ballhead attached. It holds my F80 and 70-300mm zoom no problem. It can be wrapped around lampposts, over fences etc. and as you can see, when folded will easily fit in the bottom of a bag. It did not come with the ballhead, I added that. It can be used without any head fitted, so would be even smaller for carrying. For scale thats a US quarter on the cabinet (I got stiffed for 10p in my change somewhere last week!).

 

[frdrx]

Have a look at Slik tripods. I have bought a Slik 300DX with a 3-way head years ago, thinking that I would get something better later on, but I haven't felt the need to do so yet. It supports a Pentax 645 well enough, and I'm reasonably content with it. With a 130$ budget, you might want to look at the Slik Pro 700DX AMT on amazon.com, for example.

 

[MattKing]

Even the lightest and cheapest tripod will be likely to hold your camera more "still" than your hands do. If you are using the tripod to extend the range of usable shutter speeds just a bit (say from 1/125 to 1/15) even the cheaper tripods will help.

All tripods, including the cheap ones, also add the advantage of permitting you to set up the camera in one spot, and then work with your subject, before going back to the camera to take the photograph.

If you spend more money, and/or buy a heavier or larger tripod and/or tripod head, you usually get:

1) more rigidity, leading to even more "stillness" at the shutter speeds that you would usually consider appropriate for hand holding the cameras (which translates into even sharper photographs at those speeds);
2) more rigidity, leading to more sharpness in photographs using much longer shutter speeds;
3) convenience and ease of use, which may include the ability to use quick release adapters, and collapse to a smaller package for transport;
4) durability;
5) in the case of some of the more exotic and expensive materials like carbon fibre, lighter weight for similar rigidity; and
6) in comparison to really cheap tripods, a lesser likelihood that the tripod will fall over, causing damage to your camera.

Tripods and tripod heads are really individual. I'm left handed, so there are some tripod heads that are really awkward for me to use. It is a really good idea to see if you can actually hold and operate a tripod in a store (or borrow or rent one) first, before you decide.

One thing that I have never tried but might be worth considering - tripods are either sold with an included head, or you can buy the legs and head separately. If you are trying to economize, but still want to keep your options open, you may wish to consider buying a good set of legs, with a very basic head, leaving the option to purchase a heavier duty head down the road.

Hope this helps.

Matt

 

[pentaxuser]

You might want to consider a pod ( think well padded, hardwearing, weatherproofed round bean bag) which has a screw in the middle and screws into the tripod thread on the bottom of the camera. Of course you have to have a handy wall, post, fence top, fire hydrant etc to place it onto but in cities such places are common. Easy to keep on the bottom of the camera as you walk around and plenty of change left from not buying a tripod to buy the 1.8D which combined with the right film speed is going to give you a lot of scope for handheld shots.

Can't speak for NYC but in most large and crowded cities in the U.K. I'd rather not try setting up a tripod. A monopod which collapses to about 12 inches might be a possibility but the screw-in beanbag is handier still. These days a monopod attached to the bottom of the camera with its sharp point might create much more fuss than a round beanbag attached to the bottom of the camera.

pentaxuser

 

[AutumnJazz]

The thing is, I haven't really encountered any situations where I feel a tripod would have helped a lot. I shoot Velvia 50, 64ISO Kodachrome, and Fomapan R100. And I do have a flash, which seems to help quite a lot in lower-light conditions.

I'm really not sure at all, now...

 

[PhotoJim]

Tripods help at almost every shutter speed. if you magnify the image enough, you'll see the difference.

Every photographer of any seriousness at all needs a tripod.

Don't worry about the weight. Get one that will hold your camera very stable, and use it when it's convenient. If you find that you use a tripod a ton and want one you can schlep into the field more easily, save up for a carbon fibre one.

I've been a pretty serious photographer for years and haven't gotten a carbon fibre one yet. I know I will, but it's not on the top of my list.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Maybe a light meter would be a better buy? I don't know.

 

[PeteZ8]

Check out the Slik 700 DX. The head leaves a little to be desired, but overall it's a SOLID unit. Slik claims something like 20# weight rating but I have easily put all of my 200#'s on it (yes, I have stood on it) without complaint! It's not exactly small having a very high extension and only 3 peice legs, but if you want stability, it's a tough match for the money. Slap a decent ball head on it and it will be a solid performer. It is also very flexable with 3 position legs and a reversable coloumn.

 

[MattKing]

The thing is, I haven't really encountered any situations where I feel a tripod would have helped a lot. I shoot Velvia 50, 64ISO Kodachrome, and Fomapan R100. And I do have a flash, which seems to help quite a lot in lower-light conditions.

I'm really not sure at all, now...

Buy a really cheap one (garage sale) and experiment with it. You will soon see where it helps. Then you can consider whether you want to spend the $ on a better model or models.

It is one of those photographic accessories that will either get used more and more, or will sit in a closet to be pulled out infrequently, depending on your preference.

Some suggestions - take the necessary steps to make use of a tripod or monopod as convenient as possible.

I keep one of my tripods in the trunk of my car, and rarely go anywhere interesting without my car. Also, I have cable releases in almost all of my camera bags, and my two main tripods use the same quick release adapters.

My monopod looks like hell, but I've had it for almost 30 years, traveled thousands of miles with it, and used it.

If you buy a really cheap one, you won't have much invested in it. If you buy a better one, and decide you don't want it, you can probably sell it for close to what you paid for it, especially if you bought it used.

If you can borrow one and thoroughly try it out, it will be the best of both worlds.

Matt

P.S. it really helps when you use flash, because with the right cords or triggers, it really enables creative off camera flash.

Not to mention giving you the opportunity to get into your own photographs (assuming you have a self timer).

 

[PhotoJim]

Is a meter a better investment?

If your cameras don't have built-in meters, then absolutely. You need a meter to do decent photography.

If your cameras do have built-in meters, then absolutely not. A hand-held meter can give you better metering than a built-in meter, if you use it right, but built-in meters are 90% as good 90% of the time. However, there is no substitute for a tripod (unless you get lucky and there is an appropriately located tree stump everywhere you want to take pictures).

 

[David William White]

The thing is, I haven't really encountered any situations where I feel a tripod would have helped a lot. I shoot Velvia 50, 64ISO Kodachrome, and Fomapan R100. And I do have a flash, which seems to help quite a lot in lower-light conditions.

I'm really not sure at all, now...

Depends on what you shoot, what time of day, and how far you enlarge. Street photography or indoor with flash...well, maybe not your best value. Having a monopod when you need it might be all you ever need. Landscape, architectural, or macro...then a tripod is essential.

For example, landscapes taken at dawn at f/22 and lens set for hyperfocal distance cannot be done handheld. Macro cannot be done handheld, especially if you are waiting for the breeze to die down. Or maybe if you like to do self-portraits...

If any of these are in the cards, a good tripod is recommended. I'm on my third tripod, so in addition to the great comments already given, here's my thoughts:

My first tripod was a cheap video 'pan and tilt'. It only worked on level ground ('cuz if tripod ain't level and you adjust tilt so camera is, then as soon as you pan, it ain't anymore). And the first day into a two week excursion, the plastic mount broke and my camera fell into the mud. I would have killed for a monopod at that point.

My second tripod was again a pan and tilt video head, but I could splay the legs independently (for hilly terrain), but each only out to a 45 degree angle, so I couldn't get down to the ground with it. And the head had THREE knobs to tighten.

I finally figured it all out so that my third tripod lets me:

a) independently swing each leg to any angle I want,
b) the legs can swing up almost horizontal, the center column unscrews, putting the camera inches from the ground,
c) has a BALL HEAD, not a 'pan and tilt'. I can level the camera regardless of how level the tripod is, and with ONE KNOB.
d) has a hook on the center column to hang my bag to keep the tripod in place in wind,
e) it has quick release plates so I can quicky swap my 35mm for my MF camera,
f) the center column can be pulled and reinserted horizontally, so the camera can be pointed straight down.

It's a Manfrotto 190 PRO with a large ball head. It's not light, but it's not expensive either. For me it's a necessary accessory, and it handles my Nikon, my TLR, and my 4x5 camera.

So it depends what you do, but for me I couldn't get the depth of field I need or the long shutter speeds I sometimes need without one, so I like them, and I like the versatility of my Manfrotto.

D.

 

[Jarvman]

Does anybody have any experience with the gitzo levelling tripods? they're supposedly suited to panoramic photography. :confused:

 

[AutumnJazz]

My F100 has a meter, and I've only screwed up a few photos (and those were my own fault).

A friend of mine has a monopod, so I suppose I'll see if I can try it out.

Thanks to everyone for all your help.

 

[cmo]

Used old tripods are very cheap on eBay and in garage sales... why not try a cheap and simple one that looks like garbage? My first tripod did not even have a ballhead or similar, I had to change the length of the legs.

In general photographers discuss a lot about bags, lenses (bokeh...), negative developers - and tripods. You can spend hundreds of dollars on a tripod, or you can use a simple wooden tripod from the 1950s, it makes no difference for your camera. The weight and comfort are different, so is the price. If it's from the 50's, don't believe the seller that it's a rare collectors item or antique. Nobody collects tripods as long as there is no "Leica" label....

If you decide later that a tripod is useful I can recommend the Velbon Sherpa carbon tripods. Very good value for the money.