Is anyone using an inexpensive tripod and happy with it?

[glen]

I love the internet, but wow, if you do tripod research it will try to convince you that you need to spend $500 to $3,000 on a tripod or you won't be happy. Hell, my current tripod is a wall or a post or a pillow.

 

[colonelciller]

how about a monopod instead?

monopods are much more useful than a tripod in my opinion... unless you're into setting up nature shots/portraits in which case tripods are the way to go probably.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I assume you're talking about stuff like this:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Which unfortunately is true. But you have to keep it proportional to your other equipment, and also consider your needs. If you have several thousand dollars of camera equipment, then it only makes sense to buy a nice ($200-$300) tripod, and if you're doing a lot of travel / hiking / etc. with a tripod, then it definitely makes sense to buy one of the nice Gitzo carbon fiber ones.

However, if you just have a P&S or a consumer level DSLR with a kit lens or a lightweight zoom lens, it doesn't matter so much.

The problem comes when you have weight. The $1000+ lenses are usually made with metal bodies and big heavy pieces of glass. These lenses top 1lb, sometimes 2lb+. That's a lot of weight to hang forward from your camera. Unless your tripod head is very strong, it will have trouble holding it up and keeping it steady. You will position your shot, clamp everything down, step away and it will sag a tiny bit, so you have to start all over again.

I have done part of Thom's Journey. I have been through a few heads and legs, and have settled on something reasonably priced, but it is a compromise. I have an old set of Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 aluminum legs, the precursor to today's 055 model. These legs are very sturdy and wonderfully adjustable, but fairly heavy. I wouldn't really consider going on a long hike with them. I found these old legs on Craigslist for around $70 several years ago.

My head is a Manfrotto 322RC2. It is not perfect, but it is far stronger than the Manfrotto 486RC2 head that I used to have. This head runs about $160. Pretty expensive, but it locks down pretty well.

I also have a mini-tripod, the Slik Pro II. This thing is extremely sturdy and a great value for the money. I wrote this review a few years ago:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=721288

So overall, you can be happy for less than the $500+ that everybody recommends. You can even be happy with a fairly cheap tripod designed for video (a pan/tilt head instead of a ball head). The main problem is when you have some expensive/heavy gear that you're putting on top of it. That's when the cheaper tripods really start to make their weaknesses known. But for a consumer-level DSLR with plastic body and lens, I think you could be fairly well satisfied with a sub-$100 tripod.

 

[glen]

I assume you're talking about stuff like this:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Which unfortunately is true. But you have to keep it proportional to your other equipment, and also consider your needs. If you have several thousand dollars of camera equipment, then it only makes sense to buy a nice ($200-$300) tripod, and if you're doing a lot of travel / hiking / etc. with a tripod, then it definitely makes sense to buy one of the nice Gitzo carbon fiber ones.

However, if you just have a P&S or a consumer level DSLR with a kit lens or a lightweight zoom lens, it doesn't matter so much.

The problem comes when you have weight. The $1000+ lenses are usually made with metal bodies and big heavy pieces of glass. These lenses top 1lb, sometimes 2lb+. That's a lot of weight to hang forward from your camera. Unless your tripod head is very strong, it will have trouble holding it up and keeping it steady. You will position your shot, clamp everything down, step away and it will sag a tiny bit, so you have to start all over again.

I have done part of Thom's Journey. I have been through a few heads and legs, and have settled on something reasonably priced, but it is a compromise. I have an old set of Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 aluminum legs, the precursor to today's 055 model. These legs are very sturdy and wonderfully adjustable, but fairly heavy. I wouldn't really consider going on a long hike with them. I found these old legs on Craigslist for around $70 several years ago.

My head is a Manfrotto 322RC2. It is not perfect, but it is far stronger than the Manfrotto 486RC2 head that I used to have. This head runs about $160. Pretty expensive, but it locks down pretty well.

I also have a mini-tripod, the Slik Pro II. This thing is extremely sturdy and a great value for the money. I wrote this review a few years ago:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=721288

So overall, you can be happy for less than the $500+ that everybody recommends. You can even be happy with a fairly cheap tripod designed for video (a pan/tilt head instead of a ball head). The main problem is when you have some expensive/heavy gear that you're putting on top of it. That's when the cheaper tripods really start to make their weaknesses known. But for a consumer-level DSLR with plastic body and lens, I think you could be fairly well satisfied with a sub-$100 tripod.

Wow. I mean I wish I could rate posts. I'd give you 5 stars. That was helpful, and that article really captured some of my EXACT thoughts and experiences. I have a light camera, Canon SL1, but heavy lenses, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and Canon L 85mm f/1.2. Might as well save up for the Gitzo. Maybe I will get something inexpensive from Craigs or evilbay to tide me over till I can drop the cash on a good one.

 

[corkyg]

I have several digicams ranging from a Canon 5d MKII to some P&S models. I use a cheap tripod - a Sunpak 8001UT. Have used it for nearly 10 years with many DSLRs with no problem. But! I do not use it very often.

When traveling or hiking, etc., I prefer a good monopod because it also serves as a walking aid, a.k.a. a hiking stick. And, I also use a handy dandy Gorilla pod for special positions and requirements. That is always in my camera bag. This is the DLSR model, shown with my 5D and heavy 70-200mm f/2.8 lens:

A very flexible pod - can be attached to any number of irregular surfaces as well as rock tops and tables. Made by Joby.

http://joby.com/gorillapod

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I bought the sub $40 Dolica 62" Proline Aluminum Alloy Tripod w/ Ball Head.

http://www.adorama.com/DOAX620B100.html?discontinued=t

This particular model has been discontinued, but I am happy-ish with it. That being said, I do not put a lot of weight on it, I never extend the bottom leg extensions, I often hang a weight on the hook and sandbag the legs. My heaviest setup is the D7000 with 105mm DC, and am more often using the Nikon 1 or Sony handycam.

That being said, I want the Gitzo Safari and Novoflex Magicball ($1100+)

 

[xSauronx]

I bought the sub $40 Dolica 62" Proline Aluminum Alloy Tripod w/ Ball Head.

http://www.adorama.com/DOAX620B100.html?discontinued=t

This particular model has been discontinued, but I am happy-ish with it. That being said, I do not put a lot of weight on it, I never extend the bottom leg extensions, I often hang a weight on the hook and sandbag the legs. My heaviest setup is the D7000 with 105mm DC, and am more often using the Nikon 1 or Sony handycam.

That being said, I want the Gitzo Safari and Novoflex Magicball ($1100+)

have the dolica and love it. amazon has them.

http://www.amazon.com/Dolica-AX620B1...=dolica+tripod

think i got it for less there, but im really happy with it. using it with an lx7

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Wow. I mean I wish I could rate posts. I'd give you 5 stars. That was helpful, and that article really captured some of my EXACT thoughts and experiences. I have a light camera, Canon SL1, but heavy lenses, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and Canon L 85mm f/1.2. Might as well save up for the Gitzo. Maybe I will get something inexpensive from Craigs or evilbay to tide me over till I can drop the cash on a good one.

It all depends on your needs and what you're shooting. A basic tripod would probably be fine for, say, a wedding photographer. Most of the time the tripod is simply acting as a stand for your camera. You're lining up groups of folks, go and check the framing, could you move to the left ma'am, ok, snap, we're done, thanks folks. Super precision and stability are not 100% needed. There are plenty of wedding photogs who do it without a tripod entirely. It all depends on your lighting situation, of course.

But say you're doing landscape photography, you're going for ultimate image quality, you're shooting at ISO 100, f/11, CPL filter and maybe some ND filters on top of that, you want to photograph streams and waterfalls in the deep shaded woods at 1+ second exposures. That's when your need for more precision comes in, not to mention light weight.

It also comes in when you're doing macro photography. You're dealing with DOF in the sub-millimeter range, you position your subject very carefully, make all the adjustments on your tripod to get it at the right height and whatnot, and then step in to make the final adjustments to position the camera precisely for the framing desired. You clamp everything down and... shit. It moved down slightly. The top edge of your subject is cut off. Now you un-clamp the ballhead, trying to hold it the right amount UP from where it was before, so that when you clamp it down again, it will move down to where you actually want it. A frustrating experience.

I guess it's buried as an assumption in this discussion, but I'd like to make it explicit: the more telephoto you're shooting, the more obvious and painful these little nudges/weaknesses will be. If you're shooting an ultrawide-angle lens with a 90 degree angle of view, a 1/2-degree shift in your framing isn't going to make a difference. But if you're shooting a 300mm lens with a 7 degree angle of view, a 1/2-degree shift is a substantial portion of your framing. Not to mention, the 300mm lens is more likely to have this effect on your tripod and head since it's probably a lot heavier and a lot longer than the UWA.

Basically, take any discussion involving shutter speed, how much shakiness is acceptable, etc. and apply it to the tripod discussion.

Also, note that durability is definitely part of the expensive tripod equation. Durability vs. cost in particular. A lot of the cheap/lightweight aluminum tripods will get bent and dented fairly quickly if you don't baby them. This can affect functionality. My 3021 is aluminum, but thick tubular aluminum.... like 1/2" aluminum pipes with nice thick walls. I would not hesitate to hang my weight off of it in an emergency. But it is quite heavy, so it doesn't really go anywhere that my car doesn't go. It is perfectly fine for most of my uses, however; and if you were really into, say, indoors macro photography or other studio uses, you probably wouldn't need any better. The carbon fiber legs are good at being durably strong for their weight.

Also, as others in this thread have mentioned, technique can get you lots of places. Hanging a heavy weight from the tripod (directly underneath the camera) can add stability and dampen vibrations in high winds. Setting up the legs at the correct angles for the terrain is another aspect.

Also, note that that article was first written in 2003. At that time, carbon fiber was a lot more expensive. I doubt the author has done a lot of searching to find lower-priced alternatives to Gitzo legs since he already had them. I have heard good things about lower-priced CF legs, I can't remember the brand name, but I think there are some out there that cost roughly half of the comparable Gitzos and are still pretty good. So there are definitely more options out there than he mentions, but Gitzo is still pretty much the top dog AFAIK.

 

[glen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2tPDULE4v0

Looks interesting. Basically Carbon Fiber and $100.

 

[randomrogue]

I have the Manfrotto 055xprob and quite frankly I never bring it anywhere. It's too heavy but to support my gear I can't use much less. When I have 4 lbs of camera and lenses with a worth of $3000 I'm just not going to put it on anything. Maybe the 190 can handle it but the head would be heavy regardless.

My advice is that if you have good gear just suck it up and by carbon fiber if you have any desire to bring the tripod with you. For me the tripod is only good for single point trips like taking it directly to a friend's house and back. Going out to just take pictures and wanting to have a tripod with me is not going to happen with this thing. Just too heavy. It ruins the whole experience.

Just think about what you're doing, where you're taking it, how long you'll be gone, what kind of gear you're using, is it windy, etc. Sorry but I'm not going to stick my gear on a shitty tripod in the surf and just hope it stays put and doesn't fall over. I'm not going to spend 2 hours trekking up a hill to take a sunset picture in the wind only to get zero shots that work because the tripod can't keep my gear still.

The compromise is a good monopod. If your photography can handle it. Buying a shitty tripod is burning money though. Unfortunately you can spend quite a bit of money and it still be shitty.

 

[radhak]

I assume you're talking about stuff like this:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Lotsa info in that article, thanks! I recognize myself at the 4th bullet of Thom's Maxim #2. I'm still content with my $80 tripod I got from BestBuy, but I can appreciate that probably I should examine my output closely and decide if I'm ready to move down that list.

I wish he (or somebody) would update that list to reflect choices today.

 

[Paladin3]

I usually carry a good monopod without a head for when I shoot sports with a 300/2.8 or 4002/8. The last paper I was at gave me a Bogen 3016, but took it back when I left. We had to supply our own tripods, so I always got away with a cheap one because I rarely put more than a body and a wide prime on it.

As long as it's sturdy enough for your camera, spend as little as you can get away with and go shoot more. The gear-heads who spend $500 on a tripod and then take 50¢ images make me giggle. (No offense to anyone here.)

 

[monstercameron]

get a cheap manfrotto

 

[Syborg1211]

I used the Slik Sprint Pro II tripod for my APS-C cameras, and I don't have a single complaint. The three most important things to look at in tripods are the collapsed height (for travelling and fitting into a carryon-sized luggage), the maximum height (if you're even moderately tall, it's laughable how short some tripods are), and the weight (for carrying around as well). The Slik has the best combination of all three for an APS-C camera. It held my D7000 with Tokina 11-16 like a champ.

Once I moved to full frame, I needed a new tripod, as others are saying. However, I disagree that you should get an expensive tripod for a full frame camera which you don't have yet. When you buy a full frame camera, you're basically having to build a new system (new lenses, probably new/bigger bag, etc), at which time you'll have a better idea for what you might want in a tripod. Get the Slik now and match it to your system.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Just to clarify, I generally agree with the "it's ok to buy a cheap one now" camp. While I do recognize the wisdom of Thom's article, the fact of the matter is that most photographers are hobbyists who have a limited budget. Having a $50 or $100 tripod that "works" for 75% of your needs is better than having no tripod at all since you're holding out for the $1000 model.

I think that all serious photographers have to go through stages with our gear... I don't know if I've ever met anybody that just started out with a 1D series and a bunch of L lenses. You start with a Rebel and a kit lens, then add a couple more lenses, then upgrade the body, then swap for some better lenses, and so on. At almost every step, you can sell some of your old gear in order to replace it with better gear. This way, you never have to lay out huge amounts of cash at once, and you know what you need to buy as an upgrade because you're unsatisfied with your current setup because of X, Y, and Z; not just "because it's better" but you can point to particular items in your old setup and tell exactly how they're not meeting your needs.

I think that this is important for those of us who are hobbyists on a limited budget (i.e., almost everyone). Also, especially if you're buying used, you can flip many items and barely take a hit. Bodies depreciate the most, but lenses hardly at all, and I think that tripods are somewhere in between, dictated by the price of the tripod in question. Like, a $50 tripod might fetch $10 on Craigslist, while a $200 tripod would still probably warrant $120 while a $500 tripod could probably sell for over $300.

So, yeah. I think that Dolica looks pretty darn good for the price, and you could probably sell it for $75 in good used condition, or $50 if a little beat up. Or troll CL for a used $200 Manfrotto and pay as little for it as possible, and you should be able to sell it in a year or two for exactly what you paid for it, assuming no unreasonable wear and tear.

 

[glen]

Syborg121, agreed, but I am not using kit lenses on my crop. I actually have very heavy glass.

Slashbin... What about HorusBennu ? Looks like they have a Carbon Fiber for a lot less, and almost as good as Gitzo?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Syborg121, agreed, but I am not using kit lenses on my crop. I actually have very heavy glass.

Slashbin... What about HorusBennu ? Looks like they have a Carbon Fiber for a lot less, and almost as good as Gitzo?

Might be good...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1005168

Hard to say, but yeah, it looks good, and if the head is really a copy of the Markins, then it should be pretty good as well. In this age of outsourced manufacturing, there's always IP theft/copying as well as stuff being outright made on the same production lines and sold under a different brand name. I don't know if that's the case here, but assuming that it's a well-manufactured copy of a Gitzo and a Markins, well, that's a great value.

One thing that I will say is, don't get stuck into proprietary quick release plates (except for the Manfrotto RC2, which is quite common and easy to find). The "standard" is a dovetail mount which appears to be what comes with most (maybe all?) of the HorusBennu heads. This is the mount style used by all the big guys, and companies like Really Right Stuff make custom-fit mounting plates for most common camera bodies. The right-angle "L plates" can be pretty handy.

 

[blastingcap]

This is blasphemy to some, but you can get some pretty good gear for less than you might think. Skip the Gitzo and go to Sirui, Induro/Benro, etc. for tripod legs. For heads I've heard good things about Photoclam, etc. Due to cleaning issues (ever seen what the inside of a typical ballhead looks like?), I use a Acratech GP-s which cost like $400 at the time but that's not really necessary.

 

[Sheep221]

Using $15 tripod from dealextreme, it's good for everything I do+already mentioned here flexible tripod that can wrap around things.

 

[Syborg1211]

Syborg121, agreed, but I am not using kit lenses on my crop. I actually have very heavy glass.

Slashbin... What about HorusBennu ? Looks like they have a Carbon Fiber for a lot less, and almost as good as Gitzo?

You named the Sigma 35mm which is 1.5 lbs and the 85mm 1.2L which is 2.25 lbs. The 85mm plus your SL1 is only about 3 lbs. This is not very heavy. The distribution of the weight does matter some, but neither of those lenses is very long, so it shouldn't be a problem. Take into consideration your system weight of 3 lbs when you're looking at tripods. Getting a tripod that supports 25 lbs might seem like a good idea, but you have to consider how much bigger and unwieldy a tripod has to be to support that much more weight.

 

[glen]

You named the Sigma 35mm which is 1.5 lbs and the 85mm 1.2L which is 2.25 lbs. The 85mm plus your SL1 is only about 3 lbs. This is not very heavy. The distribution of the weight does matter some, but neither of those lenses is very long, so it shouldn't be a problem. Take into consideration your system weight of 3 lbs when you're looking at tripods. Getting a tripod that supports 25 lbs might seem like a good idea, but you have to consider how much bigger and unwieldy a tripod has to be to support that much more weight.

Thank you!

 

[elitejp]

Im using a very cheap tripod. The head will move just a hair once you set it up and let go and the weight is a bit heavier than a carbon tripod but overall the tripod does exactly what i want and that is hold my dslr up and keep it steady. People on the internet sometimes just go bonkers about how to spend someone elses money but rarely do they actually buy and pay for what they recommend you should get.

 

[Rottie]

I have bought cheap mini tripod I can't remember brand name and Joby GorillaPod

 

[MrSquished]

i use an 89 dollar slik with a ballhead. it is super compact and light. i use it on paid gigs to shoot real estate (portfolio in my sig) and it enables me to quickly and easily get my camera lined up even horizontally and vertically so my verticals are good OOC

http://www.amazon.com/Slik-Sprint-Pr...&keywords=slik

 

[jhansman]

I have learned the hard way that "inexpensive" tripods are, in the long run, not worth the hassle and unreliability they often bring. Just decided to spring for a Manfrotto 190XPROB (<$200) and now I understand why people pay what they do for better support solutions. It is, for me, the best compromise of height, cost, quality, and features. My $80 cheapie now sits in the back of the closet, likely never to be used again.