D40 tripod...recommend one please.

[ADIRVING]

I want one to help me take pictures of my daughter. I figured I could put the camera on the tripod (I already bought the wireless remote) and then I would be free to get her to laugh and look at the camera. Not sure if I should get a table top one or go for a full size one. Is there one that adjusts to different heights that you would recommend. Thanks!

[tcadwall]

I would not go with a table-top one. But what you need depends on how serious you are... You can spend a lot of money on a good tripod. But if you are a real casual user you can probably get by with about any tripod.

[TNB]

The tripod should be able to support the weight of the camera, the lens, and the head. Other factors to consider may be the wind/environment and overall use, carrying, and ease of set up. Myself, I prefer a tripod built well enough and sturdy enough to support my "purchase" instead of trying to save a few bucks at the risk of a lot more.

There is a section/link on the following webpage to help select tripods.

http://www.manfrotto.com/jsp/index.jsp

[ADIRVING]

The tripod should be able to support the weight of the camera, the lens, and the head. Other factors to consider may be the wind/environment and overall use, carrying, and ease of set up. Myself, I prefer a tripod built well enough and sturdy enough to support my "purchase" instead of trying to save a few bucks at the risk of a lot more.

There is a section/link on the following webpage to help select tripods.

http://www.manfrotto.com/jsp/index.jsp

Thanks! I'll head over there and check them out.

[jcon]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=353259&is=REG&addedTroughType=search



Yes, thats the one I have.:D

[wh0128]

I also need to invest in a tri-pod. Mine is some 20 year old one that is starting to get out of date...I would go with a regular tri-pod as you don't know, you might end up wanting one. Decent tripods are around 150$

[K1W1]

I also need to invest in a tri-pod. Mine is some 20 year old one that is starting to get out of date...I would go with a regular tri-pod as you don't know, you might end up wanting one. Decent tripods are around 150$

I have a 24 year old tripod that works as well today as the day I was given it as a Christmas present in 1982. How do tripods "get out of date"?
A Pro will say the anything less than a $1000 spent on a tripod is a waste of time so what you spend is relevant to how often you use the device, under what conditions you use the device and what you expect from the device.
For the OP. The tripod that you buy should reflect your use. If you just want to take occasional indoor snaps with the lightweight kit lens then an inexpensive mini tripod may be fine for you. If you want outdoor art photos with a 7lb prime lens fitted then be prepared to invest a lot of money. Generally buying a tripod that extends from mini to maxi will not be a good idea as the more components the weaker the structure. If you want a mini tripod buy one. If you want a full size tripod buy one but do not bother with a one size fits all approach.

[tcadwall]

These are all the "correct" responses, mine was thinking more of the actual application mentioned, and subject matter mentioned. I was a bit busy at the time to be thorough.

My reason for suggesting just about any tripod is not that just about any tripod is "good". But rather than going half-way and spending $80 - $100 on a tripod, and later getting serious enough that it was a waste, it is probably better to go $35 - $65 and not feel like you wasted as much money.

Let's face it the D40 is a lightweight camera, probably the kit lens is being used, likely we aren't adding an SB-800, etc., so we really aren't talking about substantial weight. In this situation, I would suggest minimal investment. If the subject matter is likely to change (outdoor landscapes / macro work) then you would benefit from a tripod that will probably cost close to (or more than) what you have already spent on the camera.

[ADIRVING]

These are all the "correct" responses, mine was thinking more of the actual application mentioned, and subject matter mentioned. I was a bit busy at the time to be thorough.

My reason for suggesting just about any tripod is not that just about any tripod is "good". But rather than going half-way and spending $80 - $100 on a tripod, and later getting serious enough that it was a waste, it is probably better to go $35 - $65 and not feel like you wasted as much money.

Let's face it the D40 is a lightweight camera, probably the kit lens is being used, likely we aren't adding an SB-800, etc., so we really aren't talking about substantial weight. In this situation, I would suggest minimal investment. If the subject matter is likely to change (outdoor landscapes / macro work) then you would benefit from a tripod that will probably cost close to (or more than) what you have already spent on the camera.

I agree with what you are saying. I think I'll buy a nice but cheaper tripod now since I am just starting out and then later; if I get more into photography, I can invest in the nicer tripod. Thanks for all the great advice everyone!

[jcon]

I agree with what you are saying. I think I'll buy a nice but cheaper tripod now since I am just starting out and then later; if I get more into photography, I can invest in the nicer tripod. Thanks for all the great advice everyone!

I think you are looking at it wrong, with that mindset, there is no doubt you will be spending money down the road on a better tripod if you buy a cheapy now. I really think you should rethink your decision. I agree with everything K1W1 said. I spent over $200(us) on my tripod(the one I linked you to earlier) and dont regret it. Just imagine buying the cheapo now for say $80 then in a few months having to fork out the big bucks for the better tripod, doesnt make much sense, does it?

[TNB]

Let's face it the D40 is a lightweight camera, probably the kit lens is being used, likely we aren't adding an SB-800, etc., so we really aren't talking about substantial weight. In this situation, I would suggest minimal investment.
My purchase began with a D50 and an SB800. And though I purchased a two lens Sigma kit with the camera, my next lens was the Nikkor 70-200 VR. Basically, if I would have went the cheap route in the beginning, I would have been forced to purchase another tripod within a few months. It just depends on the individual's wants or needs and long term goals, as well as the weight of all the items mounted on the tripod.

[tcadwall]

Ok... I hear you - I agree with you (you being those that feel a tripod is utterly important). I have a decent tripod myself. It works great for what I need and it was less than $300 for the pod and the head (separates). It is *only* decent. Were I serious about macro photography, or were I attempting to get rock steady support in rough terrain, it just wouldn't cut it.

That said, I have found that for my needs I will be changing heads soon. Will be going with a good Ball head. Really because in use, I would like to adjust angles faster. If I had read an article on luminous landscape for instance and spent $1000+ or more without really knowing what my needs would be, I might have errantly spent my money.

Put in perspective, not everyone that buys a DSLR is really going to continue to grow with it. Arguably with DSLR sales increasing at the rate that it has, especially in the lower-end product lines, there are a lot of people that will put their DSLR on the shelf after a couple of months and rarely use it. Those people do not NEED to spend a lot of money on accessories that they will hardly ever use.

When someone asks a question about what tripod would be best for taking a picture of his child, and given the more budget conscious equipment listed (not to be taken as a shot, the camera is good for the money especially since it pricewise is low enough to compete with some high end point n shoots), I wouldn't feel right recommending that he spend a good deal of money on equipment that still might not be right for the direction he does (or doesn't) take with his photography. Really, the right equipment for one job is not necessarily required for another.

Had the question been asked differently, we wouldn't even be recommending a tripod... we would probably be recommending an SB-600 - or maybe for this situation an SB-400.

--- Jcon --
We really are agreeing here. I was suggesting not spending $80 - $100. If you spent $50 and regretted it, you always still have a backup tripod and don't feel it was a complete waste.

[eduardofrances]

These are all the "correct" responses, mine was thinking more of the actual application mentioned, and subject matter mentioned. I was a bit busy at the time to be thorough.

My reason for suggesting just about any tripod is not that just about any tripod is "good". But rather than going half-way and spending $80 - $100 on a tripod, and later getting serious enough that it was a waste, it is probably better to go $35 - $65 and not feel like you wasted as much money.

Let's face it the D40 is a lightweight camera, probably the kit lens is being used, likely we aren't adding an SB-800, etc., so we really aren't talking about substantial weight. In this situation, I would suggest minimal investment. If the subject matter is likely to change (outdoor landscapes / macro work) then you would benefit from a tripod that will probably cost close to (or more than) what you have already spent on the camera.

It would be wisest to buy a good tripod from the start this way you are not going to buy a tripod again in a long time. If you buy a fat lens that is heavy you will have to buy other tripod in the future... save the money to buy good equipment if not you will be regretting soon or later.

[achuang]

I went down the route of buying a cheap fairly flimsy $50 AUD tripod and found it to be too short and too flimsy. It wasn't long after that I upgraded to the Manfrotto 3021BPRO with a 486RC2 ballhead. It did cost a lot more than my previous velbon tripod but I don't regret it. The stability and the height of the tripod is good.

[wh0128]

I have a 24 year old tripod that works as well today as the day I was given it as a Christmas present in 1982. How do tripods "get out of date"?

What I was meaning here was the screws to loosen and tighten my tripod legs were finally beginning to strip out, so I couldn't extend my tripod fully. I think that buying a nice tripod now woudl save alot of time looking for a new one if you are going to be upgrading to a lens, which you never really know you will until it happens, even if it is a 1,2, or 5 years away, you'll still have that nice tripod that can support whatever it is you have purchased.

[K1W1]

What I was meaning here was the screws to loosen and tighten my tripod legs were finally beginning to strip out, so I couldn't extend my tripod fully.

That's not "out of date" then, that's worn out through extensive use which is an entirely different thing and shows that it must have been a good value for money acquisition. :-)

[SpecialK]

Velbon has one bigger than a mini but smaller that a standard tripod.

http://www.adorama.com/VNDFMINI.html

The 3-section legs have clamp releases, and the braces have a squeeze release (sort of like camera bag straps) which allow the legs to be splayed out wider, individually, if desired.

If you set it up on something like a coffee table indoors or a picnic table outdoors, you will be close to eyelevel with your daughter, who I assume is pretty young. It will cetainly handle medium-size lenses and may meet your needs at only $34 - hardly a big investment. For a big lenses it may not be the ideal choice, however.