Is anyone using an inexpensive tripod and happy with it?

[Syborg1211]

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.

Not all tripods are built equally. You just have to choose them carefully. A 90 dollar Sunpak from Best Buy will break and not perform nearly as well as a carefully chosen 90 dollar tripod from the internet such as the Slik Sprint Pro II.

 

[blastingcap]

Btw if you do not mind extra weight, you can get cheapie aluminum tripods that are very, very good for like $40-50. Try the "store brand" models at Adorama/B&H or the original knockoffs like Benro/Induro/Sirui.

 

[loddie]

My mid-level sub-$100 tripod has never given me any problems, though I probably haven't pushed it as hard as a professional who uses one on a daily basis.

 

[Munky]

I don't use one.... (And all the gear snobs went "<GASP!> Blasphemy!!!!")

 

[Syborg1211]

I don't use one.... (And all the gear snobs went "<GASP!> Blasphemy!!!!")

Tripods are only hugely helpful for long exposure pictures such as night time or indoors shots without flash. They're also necessities for bracketing for HDR or time lapse. If you've got a ton of light, you can use shorter shutter speeds that help remove your hand movement from the equation.

I really like using a tripod for sunset/sunrise photos. You only have a short period of time when the light is truly spectacular. So I like to set up the composition with the tripod and only have to worry about exposure once the sun starts reaching the horizon.

Then you've got your indoor shots and your shots where you want to get into the picture using a timed shutter that also need a tripod.

Then again, everyone's got their own threshold for blurry photos so if you don't think you need one, or if you never use your camera in the above scenarios, then more power to you. This thread wasn't about whether or not to use a tripod - it was about whether any inexpensive tripods are any good.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Tripods are only hugely helpful for long exposure pictures such as night time or indoors shots without flash. They're also necessities for bracketing for HDR or time lapse. If you've got a ton of light, you can use shorter shutter speeds that help remove your hand movement from the equation.

I really like using a tripod for sunset/sunrise photos. You only have a short period of time when the light is truly spectacular. So I like to set up the composition with the tripod and only have to worry about exposure once the sun starts reaching the horizon.

Then you've got your indoor shots and your shots where you want to get into the picture using a timed shutter that also need a tripod.

Then again, everyone's got their own threshold for blurry photos so if you don't think you need one, or if you never use your camera in the above scenarios, then more power to you. This thread wasn't about whether or not to use a tripod - it was about whether any inexpensive tripods are any good.

They're also helpful just as a simple stand or holding device for your camera. If you're doing studio shoots or, say, groups of people at a wedding, it's handy to be able to leave your camera safely in one place while you move around and talk to people and do stuff with your hands other than have to carry a camera, or have it dragging on your neck.

Once you get everything taken care of, you just step back behind the tripod, verify your framing and focus, and snap the shutter. (If you are taking a lot of shots of the same general subject/environment/lighting/location then you can lock your focus and exposure and never change them as long as you don't move your tripod. Just be sure to compensate if something does change; a cloud blocking the sun can cause a stop or more of difference.)

If you have a remote shutter release, you don't even have to be behind the camera, which is handy if you need to hold something to block/reflect the light, or entertain a baby to get it to look a particular direction, or anything else that requires an extra set of hands away from the camera.

 

[MrSquished]

Tripods are only hugely helpful for long exposure pictures such as night time or indoors shots without flash. They're also necessities for bracketing for HDR or time lapse. If you've got a ton of light, you can use shorter shutter speeds that help remove your hand movement from the equation.

i'm finding handheld HDR shots to be easily done with handheld bracketing which is an option as well in many lighting situations. if i know it's daytime i don't bother with a tripod for hdr, just 5 bracketed shots at 9fps on my OM-D. if i know it's going to be lower light and a static subject, i'll bring a tripod. or if i am in a situation where i had no idea i would want an hdr and had no tripod on me.

check this shot out - HANDHELD - shot at 1600ISO in a super dark underground parking garage, with my shutter speed going as low as ONE HALF A SECOND for the darkest of the 5 bracketed shots, Olympus In Body Image Stabilization) and an Oly 9-18mm (18-36mm FF) shot at 1/2 second, 1/4 second, 1/8, 1/15 & 1/30th. all merged to HDR. sharp as heck.

 

[alkemyst]

I am happy with sub $100 tripods, but I am only using compacts. A lot of the cost of the nicer tripods is the structure to properly hold a rig weighing a ton more with big lenses.

In the end tripod selection is based on the rig you are using and the shots you want to get. A monopod works for many things, but if you are doing self-protraits and the like then a tripod is more needed.

 

[Midwayman]

I find that a good head is worth the money, but I can't see spending crazy money on the tripod.