Tripod suggestions

[Cyberwlf]

Another new thread ;)

I have two tripods currently, but neither I would consider 'professional' ones, rather ones more suited for the P&S market. But i am looking for something new now, wanting something backpack/travel friendly preferably.

Current gear is my D300, Nikkor 18-200/Sigma 17-70/Tokina 11-16/Nikkon 50mm, and my SB600 Flash, so that is the gear i need to suit the tripod against. Future ambitions do include buying a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor and 70-200 f2.8 as well, but the 24-70 being probably the closer of the two ambitions to achieve so would like the tripod to be fine with that too.

Any suggestions welcomed, but would prefer something which won't break the bank thanks! :)

[josef]

The easy answer is Manfrotto. Check out their 190 series (lighter) or 055 (a little beefier). Manfrotto makes a really high quality product and they have very reasonable prices. If you can splurge a little, go for their CX models as they are made of carbon fiber and they'll weigh significantly less while still maintaining plenty strength. You'll notice the weight difference (if you carry it a lot) and you'll be thankful you spent the extra.. I personally will be purchasing a 190cx model in the next month or two as I recently spent a week lugging my dad's old 6lb. Bogen aluminum tripod around the mountains and I Really regretted not having something lighter for that trip. Good luck..

[TheWengler]

This must be the most common type of thread after the filter threads. These threads almost always result in someone getting one of the Manfrotto tripods suggested, then someone else posting the link to Thom Hogan's article about spending $1700 on tripods.

[Cyberwlf]

Thanks josef for the ideas, will check them out.

TheWengler - a. Was already aware of Manfrotto but josef actually specified a model, which is far more useful than just quoting a rhetoric like saying that Manfrotto is a popular choice. b. If someone suggested $1700 i'd have suggested they needed glasses ;) After all i did say something affordable, $1700 would require me purchasing the bank outright!

So yeah if others have ideas similar to josef's replies it is much welcomed! :D

[TheWengler]

The point is that other opinions are already stated. All you have to do is search for them.

[Cyberwlf]

Yeah but other threads dont have the same collection of body & lenses as I, or same plans for lens acquisitions ;)

But yes, I am a regular here so i have already read most of the other threads on this, but i was looking for something more specific based on my own gear from people with more experience than myself.

[erichlund]

Really??? There's absolutely nothing, zip, nada, in your list of equipment that indicates a special need other than a basic quality tripod (which is true for every dSLR with no more lenses than you have). Now, if you told us you were going to pair it with something upwards of 500mm, then we'd be talking Gitzo (and possibly a Wemberly sidekick). If you're going to spend a lot of time off prepared surfaces, you might want to up your budget a bit, so you can get a "maintainable" tripod (ie. one you can take apart for cleaning and repair - which means you're back to Gitzo or a knockoff, Manfrotto (same parent as Gitzo, BTW) tripods do not disassemble).

What you didn't tell us is how you are really going to use it. Backpack friendly is fairly vague. Hard core stuff, or just day trips. If you're often going out a week at a time, you want to be able to maintain your equipment in the field. If you just do mostly day trips or the occasional weekend jaunt, then you don't need as much capability.

If you want to schlep a pod on your back (a LOT), then you are probably way interested in CF. You'll also want to sacrifice some height and stability for light weight and small form factor. Look at 4 segment legs, and make absolutely certain it has a hook, so you can hang some weight to stabilize it. In that regard, a bag full of rocks is much safer than your entire collection of lenses (that great shot from the top of half dome in Yosemite could end up being very dissappointing ;)). Of course getting to the top of half dome and schlepping rocks to do it may be something of a judgement issue also.

[TheWengler]

If you're going to spend a lot of time off prepared surfaces, you might want to up your budget a bit, so you can get a "maintainable" tripod (ie. one you can take apart for cleaning and repair - which means you're back to Gitzo or a knockoff, Manfrotto (same parent as Gitzo, BTW) tripods do not disassemble).

The leg sections on my Manfrotto come apart. I'm not sure about the rest of the assembly. The section joints are where all the sand and water gets in anyway.

I read somewhere that if you get sand in the twist type of section joints that Gitzo uses then they can get jammed. Any experience with that?

[Rooz]

i have the 190 and its fine in most applications. the 055 would be a better choice is you do more landscape work.

[TheWengler]

i have the 190 and its fine in most applications. the 055 would be a better choice is you do more landscape work.

Why the 055 over the 190 for landscapes?

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

The search function is clearly not worth looking at as I wouldn't have had your camera and lens plus same lens ambitions when I asked the same question 12 months ago;)

Less ironically, CF only saves you a small amount of weight and the manufacturers don't gve you data that shows it's comparably stable. It's all down to marketting hyperbole.

The lighter Manfrotto CF units are also shorter so it's not necessarily the case that CF is lighter for the same thing.

My 322RC2 head/baseplate rotates on the camera when used in portrait orientation with the heavyish 18-200. Gives me the pips that a $500 tripod system still isn't "perfect".

How tall you are and at what height you want to be able to shoot is the deciding factor between the 190 and 055 series if you're going manfrotto (the poor mans decent quality imho).

[Cyberwlf]

Okay, to answer a few questions.

Surfaces i'll be dealing with will be varied, as it will be travel photography, so covering places an assortment of places within Australia/UK/Europe. Don't expect to use the tripod everywhere I travel, but i'd like to be able to have it in my camera bag to everywhere I travel (camera bag is the main thing i carry with me when traveling, food/drink/clothing take lesser priority ;)). I wouldn't however call landscape photography as a primary subject though.

Height wise i'm around 5'8"-5'9", and wish to be able to shoot from close to eye level if possible (my existing tripods make me bend/kneel down or find higher surfaces which can be frustrating).

The CF tripods ive seen so far do seem to have the illusion of being lighter when compared to the non CF ones i've seen so far, but it couldve also been due to the models i was looking at too, price wise the ones ive checked out so far (various models) are all sitting around the $450-500A mark with the head included whether they were CF or not.

[Rooz]

Why the 055 over the 190 for landscapes?

its more stable and you dont have to use the really thin legs/ and or extend the centre column to get the height you may need.

[K1W1]

Surfaces i'll be dealing with will be varied, as it will be travel photography, so covering places an assortment of places within Australia/UK/Europe. Don't expect to use the tripod everywhere I travel, but i'd like to be able to have it in my camera bag to everywhere I travel (camera bag is the main thing i carry with me when traveling, food/drink/clothing take lesser priority ;)).

You want to put your tripod IN your camera bag?
You either have a very large camera bag or you should be looking at a very small tripod.

Seriously, if airline travel is a possibility give careful consideration to the size and shape. You will not be allowed to take a tripod as cabin luggage on most airlines which means it will have to be able to travel inside your bag in such a way that it will not aid to destroying your bag or get destroyed itself during the careful handling it will be subjected to by most airport luggage handlers.

Oh, by the way you really should read this article (http://www.bythom.com/support.htm) by Thom Hogan. You will see that you will need to spend about $1700 to get anything even half way decent. :D:D

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Even though I didn't spend that I think Thom's article raises some valid points. As long as you go in eyes wide open knowing your $500 compromise tripod isn't the bees knees it's fine.

[K1W1]

Go take a NAS pill then reread the article and go spend the money like a good boy. :D

[btuner]

I really like my Induro a214 tripod, Ive used manfrotto before and they just dont seem to stack up dollar for dollar.

http://www.indurogear.com/products_details_A214.html#4

CF tripods are all marketing hype, why the hell would you want a lighter tripod? the whole reason you have a tripod is for stability, more weight = more stability. Seriously how many times have you gone on a 10 mile hike and were like "damn! if only my tripod weighed 2lbs less!!!!"

[josef]

CF tripods are all marketing hype, why the hell would you want a lighter tripod? the whole reason you have a tripod is for stability, more weight = more stability. Seriously how many times have you gone on a 10 mile hike and were like "damn! if only my tripod weighed 2lbs less!!!!"

.. a few times actually. IMHO 10 mile hikes in the mountains are no joke and it's pretty dumb to weigh yourself down more than necessary as you also will be carrying food, water, supplies, camera, etc and the last thing you want is a 6lb tripod.. but not everybody takes long hikes.. so yeah, CF is not really necessary for everybody..

[Cyberwlf]

Going $1700 on a tripod, as justified as it may be on paper/technically i can't justify financially with me not earning a cent from my photography, so i dare say i'd be in DPR's camp (and various others here) and choose a compromise aware of the limitations (which would still be an improvement over what i already have..). Would probably go for CF too, whether deemed marketing or not if the comparable non-CF are indeed heavier and the CF's still feel comparably stable, as yeah, lug stuff around for hours a day, every day, and you will feel the difference i've found.

Anyhow the thread has given me plenty of food for thoughts, so thanks!

[btuner]

See the difference between my non CF tripod and the CF version is only 1lb, that in no way justifies the 2x price for the CF version

[TheWengler]

I believe the CF tripods are also more durable and damp vibrations better. You can also hang a backpack or something similar off of many tripods to add some additional weight.

[Cyberwlf]

Even Thom recommends CF tripods, so they MUST be better! :p :p

[erichlund]

The leg sections on my Manfrotto come apart. I'm not sure about the rest of the assembly. The section joints are where all the sand and water gets in anyway.

I read somewhere that if you get sand in the twist type of section joints that Gitzo uses then they can get jammed. Any experience with that?
Old history. The slip ring was basically paper and would swell. Of course, what fills with water eventually dries out, but...time is money. Gitzo changed the parts. They are now some form of synthetic that doesn't jam.

I was not aware of any manfrottos you could take apart when I was looking at tripods. Good to know. The other issue with manfrottos in the field is the lever locks can break. Last I heard, and this may also be out of date, you had to send it in for repair. With Gitzo, if you're going to be in the field, you should keep spares for the easily replaceable parts.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Erich as much as I valued your input when choosing my tripod I'm going to beg to differ on that one. The absolute last thing going through my mind on a bushwalk is carrying spares for a tripod. I'm more likely to be concerned about how to pay my taxes early than tripod spares.:p

[Cyberwlf]

Thing is, some here are semi-pros/pros and therefore any investment in gear can be justified as an investment in their work as well, so one can match their setup to meet their requirements, those of us who are purely enthusiasts don't have the same degree of freedom (unless the person just has cash to throw about) unfortunately, so yeah, spares for a tripod would be pretty far down the list of considerations at this point!

PS. Thom's article doesn't actually make for a winning argument to spending the $1700(A) or $1000(US) on a tripod, his cheaper package is a bit more convincing, but his points are largely based on having an infallible system which won't let you down at any point, essential in business, but not essential for a hobbyist.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

But I think that is the value of the article.

Until reading it, I'd assumed a $500 tripod was the bees knees. Now I can accept some flaws in my tripod because my expectations adjusted.

[Cyberwlf]

I guess as I work in IT, or more particularly the QA field of it, expecting perfection was never something I had ;)

But yeah can definitely see the value in his article, and it did help further my understanding of things.

[erichlund]

Erich as much as I valued your input when choosing my tripod I'm going to beg to differ on that one. The absolute last thing going through my mind on a bushwalk is carrying spares for a tripod. I'm more likely to be concerned about how to pay my taxes early than tripod spares.:p

Really. I'm not talking about major parts. Just some spare slip rings and other minor bits. A few ounces that could make the difference when you need it. I'm not talking about extra legs or really expensive stuff. But, whatever. To each his own.

As for taxes, mine were done a month ago, so no worries.

[K1W1]

Erich do you carry spare spark plugs in your car?

[Thronsen]

Not meaning to drag this off topic, but what would people suggest for a tripod that you rarely have to move and that carries a light camera. Im thinking of getting a tripod for around the house, especially for shots of the bay off my balcony. But I dont really have to lug it anywhere, and the camera is a D90 with just the 18-105 lens. I do get a fair amount of wind though. Cheap and cheerful is fine, Ill probably only use it a few times a week.

[Rooz]

id always suggest getting the manfrotto 190b, (or similar quality), as a minimum. buy it once and never have to worry about it again.

[K1W1]

Not meaning to drag this off topic, but what would people suggest for a tripod that you rarely have to move and that carries a light camera.

Keep and eye on Trade Me or whatever they call it in NZ these days.
You would probably be able to pick up an old telescope on a tripod that could do double duty. If it's never going to leave the house something that looks ornamental and is practical will be better than a several hundred dollar item that doesn't get used to it's potential.
There is no tripod in the world now or ever that will be able to stay stable in a Wellington southerly so just get something that will work most of the time.

BTW. Which bay?

[erichlund]

I was going to say, pick up an old second hand woody. Looks great, weighs a ton, and stable as the day is long.

Spark plugs? Engines have spark plugs? ;) I do carry around a jug of antifreeze and some oil. Jumper cables. Assortment of fuses. A few other things I keep in a bag. I'm afraid I wouldn't even know how to get at spark plugs on these new engines. It's a major operation just to find any parts I recognize. I just make sure my mechanic keeps the damn thing in good running order so I don't have problems.

[Thronsen]

Hey there-

I live on Oriental Bay in Wellington. Every weekend there seems to be another event out there, Dragon Boat racing, Ocean (well harbor) swimming, volleyball, jetski races, and the usual assortment of sailing and rowing and rec swimming. Its great.

What is it about Kiwis though that make them walk past perfectly good indoor pools to go swimming in iceberg melt from Antarctica, Ill never know :o.

I think the idea of a wooden tripod is pretty cool. I dont need to take it anywhere. Only one I could find on TradeMe (NZ Ebay) was one attached to a telescope. Which brought up another question.

How careful do I have to be in buying a tripod to make sure I can attach my D90 to it? Are there usually additional purchases of fasteners that need to be made, or are most (modern) tripods standardized so that common cameras will fit on them out of the box?

[TheWengler]

How careful do I have to be in buying a tripod to make sure I can attach my D90 to it? Are there usually additional purchases of fasteners that need to be made, or are most (modern) tripods standardized so that common cameras will fit on them out of the box?

Yeah, they are pretty standardized.

[erichlund]

Just make sure it either has or can take the right size mounting screw. You can try to mount a D90 on a 3/8 screw all day long, but it just won't fit. Of course, if it has the wrong size screw, you can get a mounting plate for your camera that will adapt to the tripod.

[K1W1]

I live on Oriental Bay in Wellington.

I can remember when Oriental Bay was full of student flats. Oh to have had $10,000 or so to buy a house there then. :) At least you are sheltered from the southerlies.


What is it about Kiwis though that make them walk past perfectly good indoor pools to go swimming in iceberg melt from Antarctica, Ill never know :o.

You mean they have upgraded Freyberg Pool? Wonders will never cease. Once again I can remember when it was opened. My parents used to swim there when it was an outdoor pool that was simply an area of beach with hoardings around it.



How careful do I have to be in buying a tripod to make sure I can attach my D90 to it? Are there usually additional purchases of fasteners that need to be made, or are most (modern) tripods standardized so that common cameras will fit on them out of the box?

Cameras and telescopes have different mounting arrangements. A telescope will often have a pretty simple U shaped mount that is no good for a camera. You will quite possibly need to buy a ball head or similar such as this

http://www.manfrotto.com/webdav/site/manfrotto/shared/_images/Manfrotto/product_images/322RC2.jpg

Link to page here (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/offonce/pid/2319?livid=80|81&lsf=81&child=2)

And mount the ball head on the tripod then the camera on the ball head. Notice that the one I linked to has a quick release plate that screws on the bottom of the camera, these are very handy.

A ball head will never go astray because if you end up with a transportable tripod you will be able to use it on that. All you need to be concerned about is how to mount the ball head to the tripod. As mentioned most items these days use a 3/8" screw fitting.

[Thronsen]

Lol yeah, Freyberg is an indoor pool now, pretty modern building, but the weights in the gym on the second floor are from a few decades back. And tons of events there every month, was a triathalon as I was coming home today, and more dragon boat racing this weekend.

[K1W1]

Gym on the second floor? What is it some sort of place for healthy people?
The second floor was where you purchased milkshakes and chips and played on the pinball machines when I used to go there.
The sole purpose of the Freyberg Poll was a place that your parents thought was "safe" where you met girls on a Sunday morning.

[Thronsen]

Lol. You might have trouble recognizing the place now. The only place to get a drink there now is some ultra-healthy juice bar, where they grow their own grass for some sort of concoction. Seriously, people go there to drink mashed up grass.

[btuner]

322cr2! I love mine! great head!

http://www.manfrotto.com/webdav/site/manfrotto/shared/_images/Manfrotto/product_images/322RC2.jpg