Good travel tripod

spraynpray

@Golf007sd:

"I have a feeling the shooter had made an error in setting up his gear...ie lens not fully extended"

Eh?

Ironheart

Lens=legs. You have to speak Golfie

Golf007sd

Lens=legs. You have to speak Golfie

Thank God for backup...a.k.a Ironheart :P

spraynpray

Cheers @Ironheart!

ChasCS

I also love the convenience that handy hook at the base of these Vanguard tripod central column provides.
It works well too in helping steady the uneven load when that central column is stretched out in the horizontal position too.
& or with the camera hanging down at a severe angle, for those great Macro captures...

Having a Pebble Bag can help alleviate a swinging weight, providing better upright stability.
Yeah, so you can always include one of these inexpensive but great additions to your kit...


You could also hang your camera bag from the hook, and then lower the column, till the weight enters the Pebble Bag.
No further need to white knuckle those central columns for extra security, in windy conditions.

PB_PM

My Gitzo has the hook under it, and I could add weight if need. Never felt the need though.I have shot in strong wind (80km/h, approx 55mph) and didn't need additional weight, and that was back when I was shooting with a D80 and kit lenses.

Photobug

Golf, he never said if he messed up during set-up so we all assume it was the wind as he did. I wonder if he error in tightening a leg. I have never had mine try to move in the wind. When I was concerned I would grab the center for added support. Have done some crazy things with tripod legs on rocks, rocks covered in water, and rocks covered in moss. Or shooting low to the ground on a side of a hill. Love those challenges.

The novice should listen to those that use good tripods and avoid those inexpensive tripods that flex and are not rigid.

MIkeA

Wow! Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Going to mull over your thoughts and pick one. I want to stay under $400, and 4lbs. I have a Nikon D600 and the two lenses I use most often are the 24-120 VR and the 70-200, neither one of which is real heavy like some of the lenses you pros use. Thanks again all for the help. Very useful blog, Nikon Rumors.

WestEndBoy

Mike A, Thom Hogan has an excellent write up on tripods. You should read that too.

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Between this article and Golf, I decided to go with what I have in my signature, took it outside for the first time last night and don't regret it one bit even though I spent $2,900 to get it to my door. If you read his article literally, you will spend well past your budget and I am not advocating that. However, it will make you think carefully about what is important in a tripod and what to reasonably expect for your budget.

And you might decide to spend more. My initial budget was $1,000. $2,900 seems a little crazy for me, but I know that I will still be using a great piece of equipment in 30 years. I suppose my point is that it is easier to spend a more once you truly understand the benefits and as Thom Hogan points out, under spending now often means spending more later. Where did I read "The poor man always pays twice."?

My only regret, Thom describes the "common evolution that people go through with tripods" in his "Here's the usual sequence that most photographers go through in getting to a stable platform:" section. I only got to the point where I spent $300 on an aluminum tripod in 2000. There is a learning process getting from there to where I am now that I missed out on. But at least I have only paid once..........

mikep

Mike A, Thom Hogan has an excellent write up on tripods. You should read that too.

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Between this article and Golf, I decided to go with what I have in my signature, took it outside for the first time last night and don't regret it one bit even though I spent $2,900 to get it to my door. If you read his article literally, you will spend well past your budget and I am not advocating that. However, it will make you think carefully about what is important in a tripod and what to reasonably expect for your budget.

And you might decide to spend more. My initial budget was $1,000. $2,900 seems a little crazy for me, but I know that I will still be using a great piece of equipment in 30 years. I suppose my point is that it is easier to spend a more once you truly understand the benefits and as Thom Hogan points out, under spending now often means spending more later. Where did I read "The poor man always pays twice."?

My only regret, Thom describes the "common evolution that people go through with tripods" in his "Here's the usual sequence that most photographers go through in getting to a stable platform:" section. I only got to the point where I spent $300 on an aluminum tripod in 2000. There is a learning process getting from there to where I am now that I missed out on. But at least I have only paid once..........

i coudlnt disagree more with that article

you can get an excellent tripod for $100-$200. it wont fall over, it wont vibrate, it wont snap, aluminium, lightweight, perfectly functional

it is the job of people like thom hogan (i think thats his name) to sell products, and suck-up to companies to get freebies and get sent things to review. of course he will recommend leica and gitzo ...... but meanwhile back on planet earth .... tripods are very simple things; three sticks tied together at the top.


at the risk of sounding like a broken record, people need to go and see tripods for themselves in a shop before buying them, it is the only way to judge the build quality and the size/weight and ease of use.

you dont a $1000 dollar carbon fibre tripod anymore than you need a carbon fibre steering wheel for your car

i have a $200 manfrotto setup and a $1300 gitzo setup, and while i prefer the expensive one sometimes, there is no way on earth that it is actually worth the price difference, and there is no difference in functionality. speed, build, reliability, all the important stuff.

i prefer a cheaper tripod sometimes, i dont have to worry about it, i would be happy to throw my manfrotto out the window, or in the back of a car, or leave it somewhere while i take a whiz. the gitzo? no way, it cost $1000 more, i got to worry about breaking it, cant put it down anywhere, and i think it would be much more likely to snap than my manfrotto if i threw it out the window.

the gitzo weights slightly less (100gms or so), and gets down lower to the ground since it has no centre column, but the manfrotto DOES have a centre column so gets much higher than the gitzo. but by the time you stick a decent head on it, the expensive setup weighs just the same, and if i were to buy a centre column for the gitzo, it would weigh more than the aluminium manfrotto!

these expensive tripods are nice, i prefer them, but they are not needed and do not provide any real functional benefit.

seriously, if you cant operate a $100 dollar manfrotto, if you cant screw your camera to the top of a $100 tripod and take a picture successfully, then you are in the wrong business, and its time to sell your camera.

donaldejose

I am sure Thom is correct in the context of his premise: using big telephotos such as a 400mm, 500mm etc for birds and wildlife. But most of us are using much lighter equipment and less expensive tripods should work quite fine. I use old bogen legs with a variety of newer ballheads. They seem to be just fine, although I must admit I do not have an expensive really right stuff tripod/head to mount my gear on to see if I can detect any difference.

Msmoto

@mikep

There is a lot to be said for your point of view. An inexpensive tripod can be beaten around and not be a source of worry if it is misplaced or stolen. And, for the most part they will function fairly well.

And, in many cases they function just as well as the high priced ones. I have about five or six tripods. Most will hold up to 40 pounds. And, at least two are almost fifty years old. They work. I never use the old ones except for such things as a table top to hold stuff in a studio. The actual mechanical qualities work, but require much more effort to lock the legs, etc.

I have two carbon tripods which are rated for about 40 lbs. One is very similar to an RRS, and the other has the flip locks. While they are both very smooth, work flawlessly, it is simply my personal preference for the twist locks which will push me toward either an RRS or a new Induro unit to eliminate the flip leg lock unit.

Personal preference is what I believe we are talking about. And some folks prefer to have the high priced spread, others something not quite as elegant, but probably functionally just as good. Folks who prefer the RRS or Gitzo, well, that is what they will suggest leads to better photos for them. And this may have a lot to do with what each of us is comfortable with. I have used an RRS tripod and seen several in action. Just have not gotten up the bucks to purchase one.

Oh, and I have shot from a camera stand made from angle iron welded together to create an overhead vantage point. Just used a 1/4-20 screw to hold the Hasselblad securely. And, it worked well.

WestEndBoy

I don't disagree "entirely" with Mikep. I have, will soon had, one of those $300 tripods and while it does the basic job, working with my new RRS is a comparative joy. Everything is easy and I doubt that it will be showing the wear in the way my $300 tripod is.

Where I mostly agree with Mikep is that "yes, a basic tripod will get you most of the way there and that poor photographs will be the fault of the photographer more than the equipment". My point on the Thom Hogan article is that I think it is an excellent article to make you "think" about what is important. For that matter, so are Mikep's comments above. Everyone has a budget and mine wasn't a constraint so I purchased accordingly.. I should point out that the bottom of the article has some less expensive alternatives.

This is really no different than the discussion about the difference between a D3XXX and a D800 it seems.

Golf007sd

I have a $200 manfrotto setup and a $1300 gitzo setup, and while I prefer the expensive one....seriously, if you cant operate a $100 dollar manfrotto...then you are in the wrong business, and its time to sell your camera.

If you talk-the-talk, then, would I be out-of-line to suggest one should also be willing to: walk-the-walk?

MikeA: I totally agree with mikeP that, if possible, the buyers should walk into their local camera shop and have a look at some tripods. However, the odds of them having a tripod that is in the same caliber as RRS, Gitzo, and others is not always the case. All we can do here in NRF is make our recommendations and give the buyer options to consider. No harm, no foul.

@mikeP: If you feel that their is a specific model and manufacture for the end user to consider by all means provide us with the link and tell us why you have chosen that model. Hence, the recommendations that ChasCS has provide so eloquently.

This video, though a bit odd, should serve some "food-for-thought."

proudgeek

I have the Vanguard similar to the one described by TTJ. Love it. For my 300, I'd trust nothing else. If I were traveling with a lens no larger than a 70-200, I might pack something smaller. I also love the flexibility it provides for low-level macro work.

TaoTeJared

I actually like Mikep's comment:

i have a $200 manfrotto setup and a $1300 gitzo setup, and while i prefer the expensive one sometimes, there is no way on earth that it is actually worth the price difference, and there is no difference in functionality. speed, build, reliability, all the important stuff.

And would add - There is no reason to buy new either.

On price and quality expectations:
•I think "retail" of my Vanguard and Manfrotto hydrostat head is probably $800-900. In the real world I live, I bought both off of ebay for a total of less than $400 - about $200 each. Both were like new - no signs of use at all. That is my studio/"absolutely must hold and work for everything" setup. Fully extended it is over 6ft tall. Load Capacity: 30lbs legs, 35lbs ball head. I wouldn't feel hesitant to put 40lbs on that set up. Not sure what the hell that would include though.

•My Manfrotto CF190 I bought used for $150 (sells for around $275) and Manfrotto 484RC2 for $30 used. That is a great set-up, camera will go to about 5'8" and would work for most amateurs that want a car travel/home studio set-up. Load Capacity: 11lb (or 15lbs -diff versions) and I have loaded the legs (with different ball head) it to full and it is still solid. I would say that it is more like a 22lb load cap. I think that cheap little head is rated at 12lbs, but I have had it hold a 70-200 & d300 with grip and it holds things fairly tight.

•The Siri set-up - $88 for legs Arcatech Ultimate Ballhead (used for $150). Stands to 5ft with center column extended, but I would not extend the center more than a few inches - so say 4'6". The ball head is overkill, a bit larger than the mount on the legs, but I'll probably move that to the M190 sticks when I'm back from my trip and put the 484RC2 on it. Load Capacity Legs 22lbs, Head 26lbs. Realistically a 12lb set-up is probably the max I would put on it due to the legs.

Quality expectations:
Things that are clear to me when it comes to tripod and ball heads;
•The big name brands are over engineered and load capacity ratings are Understated. If they say 15lbs load, then they will hold 15lbs at any angle.
•The off brands, Siri, mefoto, unknown brands, etc. usually Overstate their load capacities and my assumption is it is usually 1/2 of the stated amount. (I.e. 22lb Load rating will handle 11lbs well).
•Any tripod under a 12lb rating are made to hold digi compact or maybe only a D3200 with a 18-55 lens and really should be stayed away from.
•Carbon fiber may sound great, but with cheap brands, it is not. Stick with aluminum.
•Actually Carbon Fiber in general is overkill - if you are on a budget, or rarely use them, just go aluminum. Only reason I have CF legs is because the "used" ebay price was under the "new" aluminum price.


So why buy cheap or off brands? If you have clear goals with what you want a piece of equipment to do, and you buy for that - you won't be disappointed.

Take my Siri for example: Does it overstate the load capacity? Yep. Is it short? Yep. Is it as sturdy as name brand? Nope. Does it have good leg positions (width/options)? Not really. So it is garbage? Not at all, it does the basics just as well as any other tripod. It will do exactly what I want it to do: Landscape, fits in a backpack, camera will rarely ever be at an angle other than right on center. It will hold a D800 with a 16-28 Tokina without moving. That is all I want it to do. Did I mention it is cheap?

PB_PM

Aluminum is heavy, and in winter very cold. Is CF worth double the price of an equal load baring aluminum tripod? Yup, the weight savings of CF are more than worth the cost. My Gitzo setup is under half the weight of the old Manfrotto aluminum (055xprob) setup I was using before. I would never go back to that cheap feeling, heavy junk again. Not that the 055xprob is crap in and of itself, but compared to the Gitzo it sure is.

As for price, you get what you pay for; if you buy cheap crap, that is what you'll have.

Photobug

Golf, thanks for the video. Enjoyed watching the cheap tripods collapse and fall apart. Loved the scene where he crawled across the table supported on one end by the Gitzo tripod. You get what you paid for sure applies here.

You can build a case for a $150 tripod. Would I trust my gear on a cheap one, no. On a medium price, perhaps but my hand would be hanging on to that tripod. People have budgets and spend what they can but I learned a long time ago, buy once and buy quality.

Golf007sd

@TTj: I know you are a great shopper and get what works for you...I'm all for that. But, with all do respect, you do have 3 different tripods and even at the great prices you found each, you are still at best close to $670.00. For one to get a RRS /w one of their heads or even a Gitzo /w a good head, you have already dished out close to about 70% of what a brand new setup would have cost you in the first place and thus have single tripod head combo that would be able to suit all your shooting needs (or at least 95% of it). Moreover, given your great hunting skills on gear, I know for a fact, that within secondary market, your cost to get would be no where near full retail pup. I hope you get my meaning.

I would hope that we could all agree that: it is always best to spend capital on a gear, of this type, once than to spend more money down the road, only to find out that with a little different approach ones purchase would have been more affective.

I have learned that with a little due diligence, research and patience, my funds have netted more productive goods.

dissent

Aluminum is heavy, and in winter very cold.

Yes it (aluminum) IS cold in winter. I really like my 055xprob, but I can still see myself going for one of those CF Induros at half the weight (and 25% off now) and somewhat nicer cold weather handling. I see good uses down the road for both.

WestEndBoy

Golf007 said:
I would hope that we could all agree that: it is always best to spend capital on a gear, of this type, once than to spend more money down the road, only to find out that with a little different approach ones purchase would have been more affective.

That is the approach that I took and it took me from Gitzo to RRS. I agree with you. Not sure if Mikep agrees with you or not, but I agree with you.

The other issue with used is that it can be time consuming. I probably spent $3,000 worth of my time researching tripods, but at least I enjoyed it. Spending time sourcing used stuff is just a cost to be added to the tripod, calculated by multiplying my hourly rate by hours spent. It is hard to come out ahead on good used stuff with those economics.

Plus, if I bought something less than I did to save a few bucks, then the allure of what I didn't get will be nagging at me forever. Economically rational? No? Psychologically rationale? For many of us I expect the answer is yes.

Ironheart

Unless you are getting paid 24x7, your "free" time is either worthless or priceless, but hard to place an actual dollar value on. How do you calculate the value of your time spent reading and posting here? If you spend 5min a day looking for a deal on a used tripod on eBay, and ultimately save several hundred dollars, how is that not time well spent? How about staying up all night photographing the stars and waiting for the ultimate sunrise? I guess these are rhetorical questions. I do get your point, but I don't know what number to plug into the value equation for my time...

Golf007sd

The other issue with used is that it can be time consuming...spending time sourcing used stuff is just a cost to be added to the tripod, calculated by multiplying my hourly rate by hours spent. It is hard to come out ahead on good used stuff with those economics.

Plus, if I bought something less than I did to save a few bucks, then the allure of what I didn't get will be nagging at me forever. Economically rational? No? Psychologically rationale? For many of us I expect the answer is yes.

Very valid points; yet, I still find the time spend finding goods at an aggressive price worth exploration. The hunt and the prize at the end does yield itself a "psychological" accomplishment. Again, leave it up to the buyer to decide which is suitable to their palate.

ChasCS

Yeah, the lighter and much cheaper the better. Hahaha

Here's one that will fit in your breast pocket... For P&S anyway...
http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=pigjh1&logNo=20098208564



More money for glass...

TaoTeJared

... with all do respect, you do have 3 different tripods and even at the great prices you found each, you are still at best close to $670.00. For one to get a RRS /w one of their heads or even a Gitzo /w a good head, you have already dished out close to about 70% of what a brand new setup would have cost you in the first place and thus have single tripod head combo that would be able to suit all your shooting needs (or at least 95% of it).

That has some truth to it, but also those were purchased over 10 years as well and there is no tripod that folds to 14" and also stands solid at 6ft I'm practical with tripods, I know a mid sized tripod can do everything - its just that I know I will not take one if it crosses that nuance size line. I found my CF190 was there in folded height, and girth. Walking down to the Saturday market, there was no chance I would attach that to my bag and walk around. Just too wildly. I'll always desire at least two tripods, one for really light travel that fits inside a bag, and one big rock solid one.

I'm not knocking RRS at all and they are really nice but it's the need for multiple set-ups, and the huge upfront cost that turns my face into a crumpled confused state that looks like a perplexed pug. At $850 + ball head for the cheapest, is just nuts. And that one is like my CF190 in almost all regards but stated load spec and if I calculate the girth (round size) it would be around 7"! A similar one (TVC-34L Versa Series 3) to my Vanguard is $1100 + ball head so $1,600. So I have 3 tripods with heads for almost 1/3 that cost.

I know, I'm picky as hell on this stuff, but it only comes from going through my fair share of legs over the years and knowing there is no such thing as "all you need is one!"

One thing I would like to point out - Aluminum is not twice as heavy at all. At most I have seen the difference between CF and Alum is about 20-30%. With new manufacturing processes, aluminum tripods are much lighter. 15+ years ago, it was the case but not anymore and usually for 1/2 the price, it more than deserves a look.

Alum: Manfrotto 055XPROB = 5lbs $150 (still one of the best utilitarian set of legs I ever owned.)
CF: Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 = 4lbs $325
Alum: Manfrotto 190XPROB 3 = 4lbs $107
CF: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 = 3lbs $350
Manfrotto still uses the heavy gauge aluminum in it's products and it is not half at all.