READ THE ARTICLE! It's one of the best pieces of advice ever to be
posted in a photography forum.
Unlike your post, which is extremely biased towards your own equipment.
Come to think of it, have you read the article yourself? It says:
=====
...here's what I recommend for the kind of nature shooting I do...
A Gitzo carbon fiber tripod (US$400-$800)...
=====
However the tripod you are recommending (and owned yourself a month ago) is only a $200 model. Surely that's a bit cheap, and rather goes against the advice in the article? ;-) Why are you so strongly recommending that someone follows the article's advice, when you haven't?
It's a rhetorical question I guess, since you clearly explained on 7/9 Sep 2003 why you didn't get one of the more expensive CF Explorers (the G2227 at $454 or the G2228 at $520, which are both nicely in the $400-$800 price range suggested by the article):
===============
The smallest
Gitzo is my most recent - the 2220 is marvelous and I've find
myself taking it everywhere. It's the aluminum version of the 2228
which is carbon fiber and was a little too expensive for me.
===============
and
===============
I am very happy with the aluminum model. I can't justify the higher price for myself
===============
So let's get this right - the article you so
strongly suggest that Melissa reads and follows, recommends a $400-$800 carbon fibre tripod, yet you buy a $200 aluminium model. And the reason for this is that you can't "justify the higher price" of the CF model, which presumably is another way of saying you can't afford it. What makes you think that Melissa can justify a $400-$800 carbon fibre tripod?
$50 will NOT get you a $50 tripod. If you spend $50 on something
that's called a tripod, you simply will have thrown away $50 and
aquired a piece of equipment that will do nothing usefull for you.
It is impossible to get any tripod for less than $200.
Ah yes, there's that magic $200 figure. Conveniently the price of your Gitzo 2220. So anything even
slightly less expensive than your tripod is "impossible to get" - ie they're rubbish.
Like the Gitzo G1001 at $149.95 perhaps? Or even the G1026, at $199.95? Well, they're less than $200 at B&H and Adorama, and since you are being so dogmatic about cost, I guess we'll have to rule them out. A pity, because you've told us that "Gitzo's are "the ONLY name to know in tripods"". How could they lower themselves to produce such cheap tripods? ;-(
But for $200 you can get a magnificent, light Gitzo (the ONLY name
to know in tripods) 2220 Explorer.
Yep, there it is - your tripod. Anything "lesser" than what you have is a pile of sticks. And therefore all Bogen/Manfrotto carbon fibre tripods, like the 3444/440 Carbon One at $462 (over twice as expensive as your tripod), must also be piles of sticks.
Since Gitzo's are "the ONLY name to know in tripods", I presume that you'd look down your nose at Hakuba too?
Oh, wait a minute - you
did read the article, didn't you? Just wondering, because this article, which you are holding up as "one of the best pieces of advice ever to be posted in a photography forum" goes on to say...
===========
If you need a less expensive solution and know you won't be shooting with lenses over two pounds (basically under 300mm), there's another solution I can recommend that gets you almost everything the other does:
Hakuba HG-6230C or HG-6240C carbon fiber tripod (US$275-290).
==========
So the way I read it, the Hakuba carbon fibre tripod is recommended above your Gitzo 2220 aluminium. Surely it can't be that a Hakuba is "better" than a Gitzo?
Gitzos get bigger, heavier and
more expensive from there.
I always thought that the idea of the more expensive carbon fibre was that it was lighter, not heavier? Less prone to vibration too, or so I hear.
They are worth every penny. They will
last longer than you will. They are a delight to use. You will
never regret spending what they cost.
So why didn't you get the Gitzo carbon fibre Explorer? I know you said you couldn't afford it, but surely you'd "never regret spending what they cost"...?
A tripod is an essential piece of photographic gear and will do
more to increase the technical quality of your images than any lens
you ever buy.
So a Gitzo tripod (and which
must not be less than $200) will do more to increase the technical quality of your images than putting a $50 lens on the S2? OK, got it. Just wanted to be clear, that's all.
There are many photographers who do 98% (yes 98%) of
their photography on a tripod.
So? There are photographers who do 98% (yes 98%) of their photography
without a tripod.
By now (or even earlier!), you may be thinking "what's his beef?" or other uncharitable thoughts. My beef is when people:
- Look down on others who can only afford cheaper equipment.
- Do not realise that other people have different priorities in life than they do themselves, and that these priorities do not include buying $600 tripods, $400 heads, and $2000 lenses.
- Make others feel inferior because they can't afford all these expensive cameras, lenses, tripods, ball heads and so on.
- Say things like "you've just spent $2000 on a camera, so why try to save money on a cheap lens/tripod/head?", not understanding that they're often trying to save money because they've gone and spent $2000 on a camera.
- Make dogmatic, untrue and misleading remarks like "It is impossible to get any tripod for less than $200", "Gitzo (the ONLY name to know in tripods)", "Carbon fibre tripods are the only ones worth buying", "Sigma lenses are junk" and so on.
- Regard the equipment that they own as the perfect solution to everyone else's problems.
Forrest
) go cheap first and practise and then 