Tripods

I picked up a tripod the other week to use with my D90 that I'm getting for Christmas.... yeah, since it's for Christmas, I can't try out the combo til then.

I gave the store (Henry's) my budget of around $100CDN, and they suggested a Velbon C500. I tried it up against another under $100 tripod, and it certainly seemed way more stable. So I picked it up. Now I'm reading that this is a video tripod. I understand the difference is in the head, and that video tripods have fluid heads, presumably to make panning a lot smoother... something you don't need with stills. But is there any reason that I shouldn't be using a video tripod with a stills camera, other than perhaps weight of the thing? It was a little heavier than I was hoping for, but within this kind of price range, I figure its a trade off against stability and ability to hold the weight of the camera and lens, and since I'm not planning to do really long treks, the weight is not really a big issue. Are there any vibration issues with using video tripods?

Should I take it back and get a stills tripod? Remember the budget... under $100 CDN. The Velbon was $80, and needs to be nice and stable with a D90 and 55-300mm lens.

Just beginning with the DSLR thing, so any advice gratefully received.

Several features of that tripod that sort of bug me:

1) crank handle for height adjustment - at that price level it won't be good

2) spokes from the center column to the tipod legs - usually indicates cheap design
3) long "video handle" makes it hard to position camera

4) only two-way pan on the head ? So not sure you can adjust the camera left/right tilt
5) specified load capacity of 3kg - seems on the low side

You may want to up your budget by 30% or more so and look at some of the budget kits from Slik, Manfrotto, etc. Also you plan to get a 300mm lens. The longer the telephoto, the more stable the tripod stability.

I recommend spending a little more and getting either the Slik 500DX, or better still, the 700DX AMT (around $150 US). These have great stability for an inexpensive (I know, doesn't seem like it, does it?) tripod. I use it as my secondary/informal photo tripod (primary is Manfrotto 3051), and primary spotting scope tripod for shooting competitions.

I would save your money.

A cheap tripod is worse than no tripod. It fools you into thinking that you can get good shots with it. But after a while you will either still be taking sub-optimal shots... or you will figure out the cheap tripod is junk and it will become just another thing to try to sell, give-away or throw-away.

The best inexpensive tripod is the base Feisol for about $220 or so. And that does not include a head.

Craigslist is littered with those cheap tripods that someone is trying to unload - because they just do not work (for DSLRs at least- they work fine for little compact cameras under a pound or so).

--
Catallaxy

I can recommend the Vanguard alta pro model. It's extremely sturdy and stable . Look it up on the internet. You won't go wrong with it and it's only 139.00 withou ball head at B&H.

3Kg isn’t enough, especially if you’re going to put a VR 70-300mm lens on your D90. That lens is quite long and it does not have a tripod collar so the entire weight of the lens is hanging off the camera. That lens acts like a lever and exerts far more torque from its 745g than you might think. I have an older pan and tilt tripod, and I knew that the head was prone to sagging and I had to constantly keep adjusting and tightening the head. One day as I backed away to view the scene I was photographing I saw the lens sag a few degrees, and then it let go completely and the lens swung down hit one leg and crashed into the tripod crank. It hit with enough force that I was worried that the lens might be broken or the internals jarred out of alignment. I was fortunate and the lens still works, but I won’t mount my D90 with the VR 70-300mm on that tripod.

Nikonians.org has a very good article on tripods and heads, unfortunately my "free" membership expired and I can no longer access the Tripod, Heads & camera Support forum ( http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=159 ). The article is well worth reading if you haven't used up your trial membership, it is under the first thread that asks you to read the FAQ.

Thom Hogan has an article, primarily aimed at the serious enthusiast,
http://bythom.com/support.htm

For professional working in the field, light-weight and strength are just two of the advantages of CF (Carbon Fiber), the third and often the most important is that CF absorbs vibrations. Aluminum develops internal harmonic vibrations when air moves across its surface. Even a light breeze blowing across aluminum legs can set up these vibrations and they travel up and down the tubular legs and by the time they reach the camera mount they can actually buzz the camera, creating a very fine blur or softening in the image. CF does not generate vibrations and the CF's construction actually absorbs other vibrations that may develop from other sources. The down side to CF is the cost.

Good ball heads have a "sweet spot" that allows the photographer to adjust the tension on the ball in such a way that the camera can be moved without releasing the ball lock, and if you take your hands off the camera it remains pointed exactly where the photographer pointed it. There is no sagging. Constantly releasing and tightening the ball lock gets to be very annoying in a relatively short period of time. About the cheapest ball head that I am aware that has a "sweet spot" is the Markins Q3 Emille at about $270; it has a load rating of 65 pounds, which is a little light for a professional ball head.

You might be thinking that 65 pounds sounds like a heck of lot more than you need, that your camera and lens doesn't even weigh 10 pounds. But you put a long lens on that camera and zoom to its fullest focal length and you have quite a lever apply torque to the face of that camera and to the ball head. A pro told me that at a minimum I should not consider a ball head that had a load rating that was less than 4X the maximum weight that I would ever mount on it.

I have a Manfrotto 486RC2 ball head and it is pretty much a piece of junk, and I would never consider using it on a tripod. I use it on a monopod and it is barely works there with my D90, 70-300VR, and a flash unit mounted. Sweet spot? In your dreams.

Some day I hope to be able to afford a Manfrotto 055 tripod and the Markins Q3, but I always seem to have other pressing needs for the $311 (plus QR plate) that that combo is going to cost me.

--

Amateurs change camera settings to match the light; Pro’s change the light to match their needs.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

I bought an entry level Manfrotto travel tripod about 3 years ago and it was ideal with my D40 & 18-55 kit lens. Then I upgraded to a D300 & 28-75 f/2.8 and the integrated ballhead was pushed past it's limit. It finally got my attention when I was out doing shooting the sunrise on vacation and one of the legs broke and I couldn't get the shot I wanted. That's when I decided how much it was worth to me to buy a pro level tripod so that wouldn't happen again: $600.

Over the past year I've taken my Gitzo 2942 & Markins Q3 to 3 countries and 8 states without once worrying if it would fail. That's really what the extra money gets me - peace of mind so I can focus on getting the shots that I want when I travel to places I may never see again.

I suggest reading Thom Hogan's article and seriously considering his advice to save up and buy the right tripod & head the first time.

Catallaxy said:

I would save your money.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's not a good investment to get an inexpensive tripod. You generally want to get one that will support two to three times the combined weight of your camera body plus the heaviest lens you foresee using. It's better to get the legs and head separately, but you can get a set-up that is passable for around $300 USD. Double that is even better...
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

Thanks for the replies and anacdotes... certainly convinced me that this tripod won't do. I think I'll keep it for now since it seems something a little more expensive will still be a temporary solution, but I'll not mount the 55-300mm lens on it, and save up and buy a sturdy one in the spring. I don't think I'm ready to blow $600 on one, but certainly a little more than half that is not out of the question.

Looks like there might be something in the $350ish range for me from Manfrotto. I can donate this one to my school that desparately needs a couple of light tripods for Sony Handycams when I get a good one.

Good plan. Having used a cheap tripod I can say that my new (low-end) Manfrotto is simply in a different category completely.

Every answer here makes a lot of sense.

If you need a tripod now that is reasonable the Manfroto 190 series legs are great. I paid about $100.00 for the legs locally and another $50.00 for a vanguard ball head.

It's a decent set up. and supports a moderate weight.

I also own tripods by
Vanguard, Induro, Benro and Slick. Each has it's own use and attributes.
--



In god we trust, all others are suspects

There are a number of considerations when looking at tripods, and load rating is certainly one of them, but not the only thing you should look at.

Maximum height can be important, and generally when someone mentions maximum height they are referring to the height with the center column collapsed – completely down. There is an old axiom that goes something like; a tripod with the center column raised is nothing more than a monopod on legs. For some people minimum height may be important as well, and some tripods allow the center post to be reversed – sticking down – so you can get the camera very low. If you go back-packing, weight is certainly a consideration.

The Manfrotto 190XPROB (the “B” simply signifies the tripod is black rather than silver) gets a lot of mentions here, partly because the center column can be raised and then swiveled so it is horizontal. I considered the 190XPROB, but the height with the center column down is only 48 inches, and raised the height is 57.5 inches. I decided that when I buy my next tripod I’ll probably opt for the 055XPROB because the height is 55.9 inches with center column down, almost as tall as the 190 with the CC Raised, and if you need extra height you can get 71.3 inches by raising the center column. The 190 weighs 4 pounds and has a load rating of 11 pounds, while the 055 weighs a pound more (5 pounds) but also has a greater load rating at 15.4 pounds. I haven’t checked the price lately, but the 190XPROB was running about $150 USD and the 055XPROB about $180.

The Markins Q3 Emille is a great ball head, but it alone will run around $290 and you will need a quick release plate as well. The Manfrotto 498RC2, while not really professional quality, is a decent head with a load rating of 17.6 pounds and is currently running right around $110. The 498RC2 ball head also come with quick release and a QR plate for your camera. Bottom line is that the 055XPROB and 498RC2 combo comes in right around $300 USD. The 190XPROB is something like $30 less, but remember it is shorter. There are also a number of Chinese clones available on the Internet, some pretty good, some not so much.

If and when you read Thom Hogan’s article, remember that Thom is a professional. Most of us aren’t and most of us don’t need a $1000 tripod. Thom’s premise though is sound, the cheapest way to buy a tripod is to buy one that meets your needs for a long time. Make the right choice and your first tripod may well be the last tripod you ever buy. A cheap tripod this year, followed by a slightly better one next year, and a better one the year after, etc, ends up being quite expensive and also clutters up your garage with old tripods.

--

Amateurs change camera settings to match the light; Pro’s change the light to match their needs.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

i am very impressed with BENRO
--
Outline

I read once that when considering your tripod and ball head get one that is double the weight of your equipment. If your equipment weights in at 7 ibs you should get a ball head and tripod design for at least 14lbs and over. Another thing that you should consider is new equipment you might buy latter on. You might want a pro lens which are very heavy compared to consumer lens. Take that into consideration when buying you tripod with head.

Outline said:

i am very impressed with BENRO
--
Outline

Click to expand...

Second here! A-297EX ...

Cameralabs did a review/study of some Manfrotto tripods. I was not very impressed with their ability to dampen vibration.

Take a look.

--
Catallaxy

The “simply giving the grip-side of the tripod-mounted camera a sharp tap by hand” doesn’t sound like anything that anyone is going to experience taking pictures with a tripod mounted camera. Many if not most experienced photographers either use a remote or the self-timer to avoid vibrations caused by pressing the shutter release. But I can’t even begin to imagine that slowly pressing the shutter release is going to cause anywhere near the vibrations that giving the camera a “sharp tap by hand” would produce. Camera Labs has had a number of poor tests over the years, and this just seems to be another one to add to the list.

Carbon fiber by its nature helps suppress vibrations, while aluminum legs can actually accentuate vibrations. Set up an aluminum tripod outdoors on anything but a perfectly calm day and the air moving (light breeze) across the surface of the aluminum can produce harmonic vibrations that move up and down the leg sufficient to cause a blur. This is a fairly well known attribute of aluminum and one that has to be taken into account when designing airplanes. I used to have a friend who was a wing-waxer, made pretty good money too. Air does not flow smoothly over aluminum due to the layer of oxidation on the surface, hence the waxing and polishing of airplane wings. Cloth sleeves help to eliminate these vibrations from the air moving across the aluminum, but make adjusting the height of the tripod difficult and as the wind picks up the sleeves may actually start to flap in the wind – not good.

Carbon fiber is the obvious choice; it’s considerably lighter, sturdier, and not prone to vibrations, heck what’s not to like? Well, nothing except the price. The 055XPROB is currently selling for $160 at B&H and the 055CXPRO3 sells for $380; an increase of 137.5%. For many amateur, the 055XPROB with a usable head is an affordable tripod that will give many years of service and cost $300 or less, while the 055CXPRO3 bumps the price of acquisition up to the far side of $500, well out of the justifiable budget for many amateurs. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t go around giving my tripod mounted cameras a sharp tab, and even my 30+ year old aluminum tripod shows significant improvement over hand holding the camera, especially when the focal length climbs into the 200-300mm range.

--

Amateurs change camera settings to match the light; Pro’s change the light to match their needs.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

I have a Velbon tripod and it's a piece of junk. Yes, it will hold a D90, but pretty wobbly, and it's made with lots of plastic.

I purchased a SLIK Spirit Pro that I use with my D90, 18-105VR and SB600 flash. It's solid and stable, and it's all metal. Yes, I suppose there are better tripods, but for a little over a hundred bucks, this one's hard to beat. Lookie here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000YAIE4K/ref=pe_62860_17765420_pe_vfe_d1

Check out the Slik Pro 700DX aluminum/magnesium composite. Rock-solid. Supports 22 lbs, weighs 6 pounds (body only) but doesn't feel heavy when carrying. Three section legs for increased stability, upper sections foam insulated. Legs can adjust to just inches off the ground for macro, etc. Tall unit: I'm 5'10" and with a D40 and Joby ball head, the viewfinder is at eye level without raising the center column. All components feel professional, including leg locks. Every review, pro and amateur gives it 4-5 stars. Last time I looked the body only was $90 USD at B&H.

Different materials have different vibration damping caracteristics. In turntable tecnology there are different mats to put on the turntable to damp vibrations and they are so effective in doing so that the change the sound of the turntable.

In tripod design vibrations in the feet tend to move upwards and downwards . Vanguard has effectively delt with this problem producing a thick spacer made from a vibration damping material to deal with the vibrations the come from the feets up towards the center column absorbing them to some degree . But if you want the best material for vibration damping you would have to go with Carbon fiber. It does vibrate as that would be imposible to eliminate completely but its amplitud is reduce . The sturdiness of the tripod in outdoors condition with breezy conditions is also to be implemented as the sturdier and heavier the tripod it reacts better to windy conditions. The Thickness of the material use also plays a role . The thicker the aluminum or carbon harmonic frequency tend to go down, in amplitude and frequency , on the contrary , when the material is thin harmonic frequency go up and it tends to vibrate longer .