# Tripods - recommendations and discussion



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2007)

Well, I've finally gotten sufficiently annoyed with the crappy Sony tripod I've been using to start thinking seriously about getting a proper one. I don't drive so it has to be light and compact enough to carry around all day or strap onto a pushbike, it also has to be able to do macro and landscape stuff, which is mostly what it'd be getting used for, without compromising print quality too much.

The heaviest lens/camera combination I can ever imagine myself owning is about 2kg. I'm 5' 9" ish and probably a bit stronger than average in terms of carrying heavy stuff, but not too much so. I don't mind saving up to buy something expensive, in preference to buying something I can afford today, and then regretting it. 

Does anyone have informed advice to offer about this? I'd be most grateful.

Edited to add: yes, I know I also need a remote release thingy.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2007)

Manfrotto do some really nice carbon fibre ones and heavy duty geared ones, you have to buy heads seperate. They're not cheap however, expect tp pay well over £150 for all your gear. 

http://www.manfrotto.com/jsp/index.jsp


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2007)

Yep, the 055MF was one of the ones I was thinking about, maybe with an Acratech head. It occured to me that a reasonable rule of thumb was that your tripod is as important as your camera, so you should be prepared to spend about the same amount of money on it.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 14, 2007)

Obviously it prob wont serve your 2kg needs Bernie but as an aside i got myself the manfrotto modo maxi for my fujui 9600. I wanted something i could take into the mountains with me, so it had to pack small. Must say for me its the dog balearics. Even got a nice joystick head all in for £43.99.

Anyways back to your 055MF4 magfiber. I noticed it's just come tops alongside the manfrotto Neotec in next months Digital Photo mag pro-tripods test article. 
Looks nice too 

If you want a copy of the article which, includes a section on heads, let me know.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> you should be prepared to spend about the same amount of money on it.



Well not quite, but I know what your getting at and the sentement is right.

I think a 55 & a 3 way head will more than cover your needs.

(Btw, just in case you are tempted, do not touch Calumet's own brand with a fully extended barge pole. They are individually wrapped servings of shit.)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2007)

Yeah, I guess what I was saying, having spent my xmas holiday struggling with insufficient light to do any macro, with decent depth of field, given the limitations of my tripod below 1/30s, I'm convinced that tripods make a huge contribution to that kind of photography and skimping on them is a bad move.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2007)

I know I could probably fix that for macro with some flash kit, but it seems to me that tripods are more basic and that I should get that aspect sorted first.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 15, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I think a 55 & a 3 way head will more than cover your needs.



A tripod fer life mate Bernie...jus geddit you won't regret it ever.....it'll hurt...but you will never regret it.... honestly!  

You could do a lot with a simple CHEAP independent flash(like this one), a long flash-sync cable and a hot shoe (adaptor if needed) macro wise....it's how I did this one at 3 in the morning...you've seen it before.....I'm not kidding...the one I use I pulled out of skip in 1986!!!111


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 15, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I know I could probably fix that for macro with some flash kit, but it seems to me that tripods are more basic and that I should get that aspect sorted first.



Tripods are essential if that's what your doing. 
Spend the dosh, get a bag for it too & it'll give you many, many years of good service.
I think realistcally, it'll be about £200.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

Thanks. I'm rather relieved you reckon I'll get away with something in that range tbh. I was half expecting to hear that the only thing light and stiff enough for my purposes was going to be some horrendously expensive Gitzo.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> A tripod fer life mate Bernie...jus geddit you won't regret it ever.....it'll hurt...but you will never regret it.... honestly!
> 
> You could do a lot with a simple CHEAP independent flash(like this one), a long flash-sync cable and a hot shoe (adaptor if needed) macro wise....it's how I did this one at 3 in the morning...you've seen it before.....I'm not kidding...the one I use I pulled out of skip in 1986!!!111


 Yep, some sort of flash is definitely on the list, but after the tripod. From what I can tell, even with a good tripod, with a bit of a breeze and poor light you're still limited to taking photos of stuff like this (these don't blow around) unless you also have a flash.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 15, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Thanks. I'm rather relieved you reckon I'll get away with something in that range tbh. I was half expecting to hear that the only thing light and stiff enough for my purposes was going to be some horrendously expensive Gitzo.



I work mainly with natural light or HMI lights and average exp for me is 1 -6 seconds and the detail has to be razor sharp. 
I use a Manfrotto 'MoFo' 58B and it's rock solid (occasionally I'll attach a couple of sand bags to it as well for good measure).
Also, be careful of wooden floors - they pick up vibrations very easily - even some one walking in another part of that floor. And always remember to put your mirror up first.


----------



## neonwilderness (Jan 15, 2007)

I've just bought a Benbo Trekker Mk2 from Warehouse Express.  It's nice and flexible and light enough to carry around.  I've only used it with fairly small lenses (on my Canon 20D) though, so not sure what it's like with anything heavy.

It cost just over £100 for the tripod, ball and socket head and a bag.  An extra £18 for a quick release platform.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

The other things I was looking at besides the Manfrotto were the Velbon Sherpa Pro CF models and the tripods and possibly heads from Benro (not Benbo) which are some sort of Chinese Gitzo clone (right down to the logo) in terms of tripods and Arca-Swiss clone in terms of heads. According to internet tittle-tattle the latter are pretty close to indistinguishable from real Gitzos and Arcas, but at about half the price. They haven't been around long enough to be sure how they hold up over time though and the only place selling them seems to be Microglobe, who I'm guessing are a Tottenham Court Road box-shifter outfit and I'd be a bit nervous about after-sales support with that option. A further concern is the obvious line of speculation about exactly _why_ these Chinese knock-offs are half the price of kit made under EU employment and human rights regulations. Velbon and Benro models are in the same sort of price range as the Manfrotto MF models, but maybe say 0.5kg lighter for equivalent loads. 

Given that I don't drive, even small weight / bulk / awkwardness improvements might make the difference between bothering to take the tripod or not, so I'm probably a bit more concerned about all that stuff than someone who drives everywhere might be. Hence my willingness to save up a bit first.

In terms of head, I'm fed up with levers that stick out all over the place, and keep wanting to use my pan/tilt head like it was a ball-head, so I'm quite strongly tempted by e.g. the Acratech head, which looks like it's a pretty well designed piece of kit for my sort of usage (light weight, open ball so it doesn't collect crap, tilts right forward for macro stuff) although its a fair bit more expensive than the Manfrotto ball-heads, it's still way cheaper than the flat-out pro stuff and nobody seems to have a bad word to say about them, except for some evidently rich birdwatchers and sports photographers who want Arca-Swiss type tension control that lets them float a big lens freely, which I don't care about. The Acratech apparently doesn't have that capability, it's either locked solid or not at all, but for my purposes I don't see that as a problem.

One other potentially useful (to someone rich or professional) bit of info that I just picked up is that Gitzo are about to launch replacements for their whole range (pdf catalogue here), so there'll probably be some bargains (still horrendously expensive, but relative to their normal prices you could call them bargains) in the next month or two as they sell off all the old stuff. This seems pretty imminent, so by the time I'd saved up enough to take advantage, such bargains will probably be over but I mention it in case someone with that sort of money burning a hole in their pocket happens to be reading this.

Anyhow, that's my reasoning so far. Perhaps the info above will be useful to someone else. If anyone spots a flaw in my logic, has further advice or has any experience with the more obscure items above, I'd be interested to hear about it.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 15, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

> I've just bought a Benbo Trekker ... It's nice and flexible and light enough to carry around.



I've had one for years but I rarely use it - they're not very stable for MF.
Great design though.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2007)

My old boss gave me a solid steel tripod, it must have weighed at least 10 pounds. He said he bought it to start off his career in journalism 30 years ago in Australia. It looked like a frame of a wigwam that had been painted with red hammerite. I borrowed it from time to time but turned down his offer to keep it. Was too bloody bulky and if you weren't careful when you were folding it away it would take your fingers off. Had a pneumatic (sp?) arm and all sorts. Looked home made to me.

<reminisce />

I have a Giottos monopod, pretty good tbh. I Think they do special tripods for taking photos of fauna, they're matt coloured and have an arm that lets you swing down to ground level but keep the main body of the tripod some several inches above ground. I'm sure it is Giottos who do them... I'll google!


----------



## Robster970 (Jan 15, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I think a 55 & a 3 way head will more than cover your needs



I've had a Velbon and 55 with an 804rc2 3 way. Manfrotto hands down. It don't blow anywhere and if it does get a bit wobbly then I can just attach my rucksack to the bottom anyway.

I don't know what Manfrotto ball heads are like though and the only ball heads I ever hear about to any great extent are the Arca ones which like you say are quite pricey.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I have a Giottos monopod, pretty good tbh. I Think they do special tripods for taking photos of fauna, they're matt coloured and have an arm that lets you swing down to ground level but keep the main body of the tripod some several inches above ground. I'm sure it is Giottos who do them... I'll google!



Uniloc, sorry 

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.asp?binsandscopes/tripods/uniloc.html#kits









> Constructed in Britain, the award winning UNI-LOC range of products caters for both the professional and amateur photographer and videographer.
> The single curved bolt and locking lever allows independent movement of each tripod leg and centre column, allowing the tripod to be locked into almost any position. The result is an extremely rigid tripod, versatile enough to be used on the most uneven terrain. Constructed from rigid aluminium alloy tubing and high impact nylon moulding, the tripods incorporate fully sealed lower leg sections with tough spiked feet, making them equally at home in the studio environment as well as inhospitable outdoors, immersed in mud and water. The UNI-LOC range of tripods is divided into two series - the Standard series and the System series.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 15, 2007)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I don't know what Manfrotto ball heads are like though



I've had a Manfrotto heavy duty ball head for travel work for about 14 yrs. Still works perfectly.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2007)

I thought you were advocating not to spend £200


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I've had a Velbon and 55 with an 804rc2 3 way. Manfrotto hands down. It don't blow anywhere and if it does get a bit wobbly then I can just attach my rucksack to the bottom anyway.
> 
> I don't know what Manfrotto ball heads are like though and the only ball heads I ever hear about to any great extent are the Arca ones which like you say are quite pricey.


 Useful thanks. Was the Velbon blowing around because it was lighter in the first place, or was it actually less stiff than the Manfrotto?


----------



## per (Jan 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I thought you were advocating not to spend £200



eh?  

Have you used a tripod before Bernie?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

per said:
			
		

> eh?
> 
> Have you used a tripod before Bernie?


 Yes, but as explained a bit in the first post, I've started to discover the limitations of the one I have (a Sony job that cost about £90)


----------



## per (Jan 15, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Yes, but as explained a bit in the first post, I've started to discover the limitations of the one I have (a Sony job that cost about £90)



Sorry 

So the manfrotto @ 200 is within your budget then?

They do the mini/midi/maxi ranger which are a lot cheaper, friend has one and it works fine! It depends what you're photographing, weather, conditions dependent.

The eh? was @ Firky as I didnt know where he was getting that from.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

per said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> So the manfrotto @ 200 is within your budget then?
> 
> <snip>


 Well, my budget depends on how long I decide to save up. What I've got now is light enough, a bit awkward to use, but works sort of OK until I'm trying to use it under about 1/20s say, then a certain 'springy' quality becomes apparent 

I've got a few constraints, e.g. I'd like something tall enough etc, but the two most challenging constraints are probably 1) light enough to carry all day and 2) stiff enough to be able to do reliably sharp macrophotography at speeds under say 1/20s. A bit of research indicates that probably means I have to spend a bit of money, or get a very lucky bargain, so I'm resigned to saving up.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Uniloc, sorry
> 
> http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.asp?binsandscopes/tripods/uniloc.html#kits


 That's an intriguing design, but the ones with weight specified look a fair bit heavier than e.g. the Manfrotto 055MF, which is what I'm leaning toward. 

That's what I meant about challenging constraints, "light, stiff, cheap: pick any two". Having said that though, one of those would work really well for me in the back garden, particularly one of the heavier ones where the arm thingy (which I could use for getting into rosebushes) would thus be pretty rigid.

Right now though, I'm after something that I'm likely to take with me on e.g. a visit to one of the local nature reserves. So it has to be pretty light.


----------



## Robster970 (Jan 15, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Useful thanks. Was the Velbon blowing around because it was lighter in the first place, or was it actually less stiff than the Manfrotto?



The Velbon is considerably lighter than the 55. It's quite stiff though so flexing was never an issue. Just in blowy conditions it would move unless anchored down by my rucsack.

I'm really happy with the Manfrotto. Even though it's a heavier piece of kit, it's a massively more versatile tripod - I got the one where you can take the central column out and position it horizontally. 

Don't get me wrong - the Velbon was good for 3 years and got heavily used. It's just that the Manfrotto is a better built tripod imho.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 15, 2007)

Thanks Robster, exactly the sort of info I was hoping for.


----------



## Hyb (Jan 17, 2007)

Do consider the weight (legs + head) and folded size seriously. There's a temptation to think "I'm in shape and 2.5kg isn't _that_ much". When the truth is that if it weighs and folds anymore than is truely convenient to transport, then you will more often opt to leave it at home. And that's a really useless tripod.

Although Manfrotto have a very good name in what they do. The relative tradeoff in weight for price of their CF legs leave a lot to be desired. The 055MF3 is only .4kg off it's larger brother. At twice the price and barely any difference in closed length. That's still stupidly big and heavy by my books.

Gitzo is of course the daddy of CF/alu and will last you an age. But if you're not earning a healthy living from your photography, then you might find it hard to justify the price. Look at Slik and Velbon. Don't discount the "cheapy" HK manufacturers like Benro and Feisol. For the sake of a name and waiting a week's shipping, you could pay considerably less money for a tripod of equal or better quality.

Heads are a pretty personal choice. You need to try a few and see what suits you best.


----------



## Cid (Jan 20, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Uniloc, sorry
> 
> http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.asp?binsandscopes/tripods/uniloc.html#kits



Actually both Giottos and Manfrotto have started introducing new systems... The manfrotto one is less versatile (basically the centre column can be placed vertically or horizontally) but is stable. Giottos one looks lush, see here (er Giottos don't direct link, just go into products MT 93/83/73). Both  ranges have models which I think are just about in your price range (including bag and head).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 21, 2007)

Thing about those things is, to me they look like a monopod stuck on the end of a tripod, so I'd imagine that they are a bit less rigid than a decent tripod alone.


----------



## Cid (Jan 21, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Thing about those things is, to me they look like a monopod stuck on the end of a tripod, so I'd imagine that they are a bit less rigid than a decent tripod alone.



The uni-loq and benbo ones this may be true of, but the Giottos and Manfrotto one are both just adaptations of their current systems. Both have removable central columns and a bracket you can fit the column into... When you put the column in these positions there are some compromises in stability (the weight has been redistributed after all) but they're pretty easy to compensate for. In standard tripod mode they're no different to another manfrotto/giottos tripod that uses the same centre column bracket.


----------



## Wilson (Jan 21, 2007)

it sounds like you dont like the head on the sony tripod but you havent said much about what you dont like about the legs, you may well find that the head unscrews (it might have some small locking screws tho) and if it does it should have a standardised stud which any head should fit onto


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 21, 2007)

Wilson said:
			
		

> it sounds like you dont like the head on the sony tripod but you havent said much about what you dont like about the legs, you may well find that the head unscrews (it might have some small locking screws tho) and if it does it should have a standardised stud which any head should fit onto


 Good thought Wilson, but alas, the legs are way too short for my height when fully extended. I mostly don't extend them at all, and use it at low level, or as low as it will go given that the legs have braces. When I do that, the wobbly legs are a bit less of a problem, but the head then becomes the main issue, slowly drooping and vibrating at low speeds. The whole thing is pretty light and flimsy (around 1.2kg) and it was probably intended as a cheap light alloy travel tripod. Hence my intention to completely replace it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 21, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> The uni-loq and benbo ones this may be true of, but the Giottos and Manfrotto one are both just adaptations of their current systems. Both have removable central columns and a bracket you can fit the column into... When you put the column in these positions there are some compromises in stability (the weight has been redistributed after all) but they're pretty easy to compensate for. In standard tripod mode they're no different to another manfrotto/giottos tripod that uses the same centre column bracket.



Yep, I had a play with one of the Manfrotto ones the other day, it seemed ok, albeit a little bit heavy. (It was the 055pro rather than the 055mf I think)

The Velbon Sherpa Pro CF models seemed quite good too and very light for their size, and I note that Warehouse express have the older versions on sale right now nicely priced. I liked the leg locks on the Velbon better (twisty kind rather than snap type that the Manfrottos have)


----------



## Wilson (Jan 21, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Good thought Wilson, but alas, the legs are way too short for my height when fully extended. I mostly don't extend them at all, and use it at low level, or as low as it will go given that the legs have braces. When I do that, the wobbly legs are a bit less of a problem, but the head then becomes the main issue, slowly drooping and vibrating at low speeds. The whole thing is pretty light and flimsy (around 1.2kg) and it was probably intended as a cheap light alloy travel tripod. Hence my intention to completely replace it.



i see what your saying, theres nothing worse than a short tripod with a droopy head, the velbon ones look good in the picture but ive never seen one, i think you have to be really careful about the weight if youre carrying it any distance my smallest tripod is just that bit too heavy really

something else, if youre using shutter speeds between 2s and 1/15 ish with an SLR then the mirror can cause a vibration when it flips up which can create camera shake (on a crappy tripod but also on good ones and if the lens is lengthy), if you have a self timer then you might find it flips the mirrior earlier


----------



## Cid (Jan 21, 2007)

I linked to the MF because it's the lightweight version (probably bloody expensive though), I have an 055pro and love it, but it is a bit bulky. My experience with velbons is nothing special but I've never used their higher end models. I bought the Manfrotto because the horizontal mount is great for getting the light right on birds eye model shots (the architectural kind) as well as being useful for wildlife work. The Giottos one has twist legs I think, but I don't know of anywhere you can try them.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 21, 2007)

I found the EU distributor for Benro, those Chinese Gitzo / Arca-Swiss knockoffs I mentioned a page or so back. According to some internet sources Gitzo had tried to outsource production to these guys, but forgot about the relaxed attitude to intellectual property rights in the PRC until 99% Gitzo clones started showing up all over the far east. 

They're supposed to be very close to the real thing in terms of quality and specification (and model numbers and logo pretty much) according to online rumour. Only they're somewhat less than half the price of the real thing. Interestingly they sell direct, presumably for lack of UK retailers. The only place you can try them out seems to be at Microglobe off Tottenham Court Rd, but they mark them up about 50%. 

http://photopal.co.uk


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 22, 2007)

Hmm, well. Here's a not terribly favourable review of one of their ballheads.

http://www.tomwebsterphoto.com/Essays/Benro/benroks2.htm


----------



## Hyb (Jan 22, 2007)

I'll add, don't necessarily look to China/HK for your ballhead. Go with a UK "brand name" for that part. Manfrotto, Arca, Kirk, etc.

The tripods I've seen and used have been great. But I get the impression that of all the R&D involved in designing a really well functioning ballhead, not quite enough ground has been covered or mistakes learnt from those quarters yet.

Though I doubt your setup will be quite as demanding as said reviewer's.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 22, 2007)

Nope, something like 2kg is the most that I'm ever likely to put on it. Not interested in birdwatching or sports or any of that long/fast lens stuff.

Even so, the photos of that head disassembled were pretty worrying. I did neater finishing in metalwork class at school and that gouged up alloy collar did not look very durable to me. Yet the external finish is pretty snazzy, so one worries that they're going for superficial plausibility. It makes me wonder what the bearings and stuff on their tripods are like. I think I'll stick with well-tried brands.


----------



## Hyb (Jan 22, 2007)

I doubt that'd sag like a 1DII and big L prime.

But the ergonomics and whether it turns itself into ribbons are quite important.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 27, 2007)

Hmm anyone know anything about these guys? (note the ex-demo Gitzos for Manfrotto prices)

http://www.procentre.co.uk/secondhand_Equipment.html


----------



## Wilson (Jan 27, 2007)

theyre pretty damn good company imo not sure if theyre the official uk importers of gitzo but i think they are of hasselblad


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 27, 2007)

Yep, I posted that before I'd looked at the rest of their site but once I did it was fairly obvious they're a legit outfit. 

Might be paying them a visit next week as I'm down in London. The cheaper of those Explorers would do me very nicely in theory.


----------



## lobster (Jul 26, 2008)

Since the Nikon D80 body is heavier than Nikon F80 that I last used on this tripod with a fairly heavy lense , whenever I try  to have  the camera vertical , the camera goes down... to much weight.

I have had this £100 Velbon for a few years now..

I am aware Gitzo are the best by far, what is second best and will not let the camera slide down?

My budget can stretch to £300 including the head.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 26, 2008)

I have a sturdy steel Manfrotto which IIRC did not cost me very much. 

I say sturdy, it can be made to flex but is much sturdier if you hang your bag underneath it. 

Its with me now so I can tell you what it is : 

Manfrotto 055CLB with a 141RC manfrotto head.


----------



## onthebrightside (Jul 26, 2008)

Manfrotto 190 with a good ball head.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 26, 2008)

The pro wildlife photog that I spent the day with once had a cast aluminium one (cast ally legs). It was well rigid, really quite light but I think it cost a packet.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2008)

I've a Manfrotto 055MF4 mag fiber with a 488RC2 ball head. Totalled about £250. Both are great. Don't get the 486 head, it can't support anything.


----------



## tom_craggs (Jul 26, 2008)

I use a manfrotto carbon number one 443, few years old but still a damn good bit of kit.


----------



## lobster (Jul 26, 2008)

So it looks like Manfrotto is the way to go. Just a thought.. would changing the head on my current one help? i had a look on www.warehouseexpress.com and the prices of the velbon ball heads are similar to Manfrotto .

The one it comes with is this which only holds 2.2 kg.

So would replacing it with one that can hold more weight and also a ball head be a possible solution? For the amounts of time I actually use the tripod, I feel its quite expensive. 

Or am i just wasting time trying to replace the head?


----------



## onthebrightside (Jul 26, 2008)

lobster said:


> Or am i just wasting time trying to replace the head?



If you buy a good Manfrotto head you can upgrade the legs later if you so desire.


----------



## lobster (Jul 26, 2008)

onthebrightside said:


> If you buy a good Manfrotto head you can upgrade the legs later if you so desire.



but would it fit on the tripod i have? or is there a standard to heads?


----------



## onthebrightside (Jul 26, 2008)

My legs work with both threads. Is it possible to take yours to a shop and try them out?


----------



## lobster (Jul 26, 2008)

maybe i could try taking it to a local jessops.


----------



## danski (Jul 26, 2008)

not that it will help you at all but i got a Manfrotto 144 with a 141rc head in excellent condition for the princely sum of £23 today.

*is well chuffed*


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 26, 2008)

I've got a Slik Pro 500 DX tripod, with a Slick 800 Ballhead, and it's fantastic.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 27, 2008)

Unless you have very particular requirements (which it doesn't sound like you do), I wouldn't bother with Manfrotto, let alone Gitzo - the Slik mentioned above, or its big brother, the Pro 700X, are superb tripods for pretty much peanuts. The latter model will easily hold a camera much larger than a D80 (it's aimed at pro-DSLR or MF users), it's pretty light, and goes well high off the ground:






http://www.thedigitalcamerashop.co.uk/product_details.php?id=957


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 27, 2008)

lobster said:


> Since the Nikon D80 body is heavier than Nikon F80 that I last used on this tripod with a fairly heavy lense , whenever I try  to have  the camera vertical , the camera goes down... to much weight.
> 
> I have had this £100 Velbon for a few years now..
> 
> ...



You should have a look at some car boot sales there are some really heavy duty tripods appearing as people are selling off their old video camera kit. You should be able to get one for £5 or less.


----------



## lobster (Jul 27, 2008)

I forgot to mention weight is fairly important as I don't have my own transport.
The Slik PRO 700 is well over 3 kg, that's pretty heavy , what with the camera and one lens weighing almost 1kg  , it all starts to weigh up. 
The velborn is under 1kg, so I am use to light tripods..  

Has anyone had experience with Giottos tripods? This Giottos MTL8360B   weights just under 2kg and can hold up to 8kg. 

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1025877

8kg is proberly overkill but who knows the future...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2008)

Tripods are evil aliens who want to enslave us with the hideious caps


----------



## tom_craggs (Jul 30, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> Unless you have very particular requirements (which it doesn't sound like you do), I wouldn't bother with Manfrotto, let alone Gitzo - the Slik mentioned above, or its big brother, the Pro 700X, are superb tripods for pretty much peanuts. The latter model will easily hold a camera much larger than a D80 (it's aimed at pro-DSLR or MF users), it's pretty light, and goes well high off the ground:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although I use a manfrotto I agree with this, Slik make some pretty good tripods, this one especiallly is a an excellent choice and agreed better value than manfrotto. 

Giottos make very good tripods and the one you link to would be a fantastic tripod, it's an expensive bit of kit so largely depends on how much you will be using it but a good tripod if its something you use a lot is an essential bit of kit. 

Carbon fibre is the way to go if weight is an issue, as with all photography equipment it is always worth thinking what you can get second hand. Pretty much all my kit is second hand an it has saved me literally thousands.


----------



## Cid (Jul 30, 2008)

You absolute cannot go wrong with Manfrotto, Giottos or Gitzo...

I have a 141RC tilt and pan head (never really liked ball heads tbh) on 055 PROb legs (which the fuckers have just made even better by allowing the central column to be put in a horizontal position without removing it ). It's superb but probably a bit heavy for you, the 190 is a little smaller and weighs in at 1.8kg, plus head that would be 2.4-2.6kg... My system is about 3.2kg I think, but extends to 180cm rather than 145cm. The 190+head would come in at around £135 I think, my system was about £170.

The beauty of Giottos and Manfrotto is that they both have systems that allow you to mount the column horizontally which I've found extremely useful. Legs will also go to near flat if you remove the column and mount directly to the tripod (you may not have to remove it with the improvements I mentioned earlier though). If you want to go really light you have to go carbon fiber as mentioned, but you'll add £100 to your budget.

Oh, if you stick with ball heads you can keep the weight of the system down, but do check the weight handling capacity. Also check warehouse express for deals, they often have some good offers.


----------



## lobster (Aug 29, 2008)

I got a Manfrotto 055MF4 mag fiber with a 488RC4 ball head in the end.
Makes a world of difference over the Velbon. 

Not that I really need to but the head won't come of.  

I turned the lock around in difference positions...


----------



## lobster (Aug 29, 2008)

I got a Manfrotto 055MF4 mag fiber with a 488RC4 ball head in the end.
Makes a world of difference over the Velbon. 

Not that I really need to but the head won't come of.  

I turned the lock around in difference positions...


----------



## tom_craggs (Aug 29, 2008)

lobster said:


> I got a Manfrotto 055MF4 mag fiber with a 488RC4 ball head in the end.
> Makes a world of difference over the Velbon.
> 
> Not that I really need to but the head won't come of.
> ...



I think you need to unscrew some little screws on the mountain plate to remove the head from this...should be 4 from memory.


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 3, 2018)

I currently have a Manfrotto 055 tripod which is fine but a bit too heavy for carrying on long walks, particularly if I'm carrying camping gear too. So I'm on the lookout some something smaller and lighter but sturdy enough to hold a DSLR (Canon 5D + wide lens, probably about 2kg max).

I tried the Manfrotto Pixi on a recent trip to Scotland:






It's certainly light enough, but the height of it is a bit limiting  So something in-between would be good.

Does anyone have any recommendations?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2018)

I have had* one of those and it's a nice little tripod. Maybe just stick an extender on it?

Adjustable Handheld Extension Rod Telescopic Pole Monopod for Tripod Stabilizer 863105711161 | eBay

*left it on a plane


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B073N9687P/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

took it to the back of beyond in siberia, put it through its paces for lots of different shots, performed very well and would highly recommend.

i used an fz72 but it would easily cope with a dslr


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 3, 2018)

Those are both options, but ideally I’m looking for something slightly taller. That Pixi was a bit of a pain to get stable on uneven ground, so would probably be worse with an appointment extender.


----------



## alsoknownas (Sep 3, 2018)

The latest version of the Pixi has an extension that makes it a bit more stable (it's the Pixi Evo). 
You can also get the VR kit, which has a lightweight stand pole (designed for very small cameras) extending from it.  I honestly wouldn't recommend that type of setup (the VR kit) for outdoor photography.  The centre of gravity is very low, and frankly its gonna topple over at the slightest provocation.

I've just ordered a PEDCO Ultrapod 2, so I'll let you know how I get on with it.

 
You can attach it to stuff apparently:


----------



## alsoknownas (Sep 3, 2018)

For a proper portable tripod I use a Sirui ET-1204, which I think is excellent, but is probably around the same weight as the one you've already got.
 
I have my doubts whether there is a viable middle ground between a proper tripod like this, and a truly portable device like the ones above, which rely on a local wall, rock, or branch for height.  Anything in-between is likely to be too compromised I would have thought.
Though I am from a video background, where the tripod requirements are a bit different.


----------



## alsoknownas (Sep 3, 2018)

Actually, it looks like the tripod you have is relatively heavy (at least 2kg depending on model it seems).  The Sirui one I listed above is nearly half as light, so that could be something. 

eta:

Reasonable price for what it is, but might be more than you'd like to spend -

Sirui ET-1204 - 1.04 Kg - £299

ET Series ǀ Sirui

SIRUI ET-1204 Easy Traveler - Tripod Carbon with E-10 Ball Head - ET Kit


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 3, 2018)

I got a 8" high flexible leg tripod from lidl. It's been good. 

This is it Stello Blog: LIDL mini tripod €5.99 - awesome!


----------



## mhendo (Sep 3, 2018)

A few months ago, before visiting friends and family in Australia, I bought myself a Benro FPA19AB0 ProAngel Aluminum-Alloy #1-Series Tripod with B0 Ball Head.






It's certainly light (3lb, or just under 1.4kg, including the head), and the legs also fold upwards, allowing for very compact storage, especially if you remove the head first and store it separately. And at $US149, it's pretty cheap for a tripod.

As far as its general functionality, it's definitely a compromise. Lighter tripods are generally, by definition, less stable that heavier ones, and this one works best if you don't extend the legs all the way. Fully extended, it's susceptible to wobbles, so I always gave it plenty of time to stabilize, and I generally shot with a mirror-up/remote setup to minimize camera vibration. It does have a hook at the bottom of the center post, which allows you to hang a bag or other weight in order to stabilize the tripod. 

I was quite impressed with the ball head. It's relatively easy to adjust, and it tightens quite nicely, without too much in the way of sag or slip. I mainly used it with wide-angle lenses for landscapes, and with a Nikkor 105/2.8 Micro for plants and bugs and stuff. I imagine that the ball head might have more trouble coping with, say, a 70-200/2.8.

My one concern with it right now is the leg locking mechanisms. It's a twist system, and takes a bit of getting used to. Also, on one of the legs at least, it doesn't take much to loosen the mechanism, especially when the tripod is fully collapsed. It's not so bad when the legs are extended, but if you close the tripod and don't fully tighten the legs, and then give them a bump, one of the legs extends itself while you're carrying it, which can be rather annoying.


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 4, 2018)

alsoknownas said:


> The latest version of the Pixi has an extension that makes it a bit more stable (it's the Pixi Evo).


That was the one I tried. Not bad for the price and it was fine on flat ground, but quickly became unsteady once you tried to use it on anything uneven. 



alsoknownas said:


> I have my doubts whether there is a viable middle ground between a proper tripod like this, and a truly portable device like the ones above, which rely on a local wall, rock, or branch for height. Anything in-between is likely to be too compromised I would have thought.


I think what I'm ideally looking for is a "proper" style tripod, but without extending legs and with a basic head. That should be a decent compromise between weight and stability. I'm not sure if such a thing exists though


----------



## weltweit (Dec 17, 2019)

I find when I am trying to shoot landscapes a tripod slows me down and causes me to take more care, this results in my taking a lot fewer images but more of them are keepers. 

If my subject is wildlife, portraits, candid people pictures or motorsport, I never use my tripod, there just isn't enough time and trying to use it would just result in a lot of missed shots. 



I have a Manfrotto 055 aluminium tripod, a bit on the heavy side, but I am used to it now.
It lives in the boot of my car, next to my wellies, always ready!


----------



## a_chap (Dec 17, 2019)

I try to avoid tripods


----------



## weltweit (Dec 17, 2019)

tbf that is a massive camera!


----------



## neonwilderness (Dec 17, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I find when I am trying to shoot landscapes a tripod slows me down and causes me to take more care, this results in my taking a lot fewer images but more of them are keepers.
> 
> If my subject is wildlife, portraits, candid people pictures or motorsport, I never use my tripod, there just isn't enough time and trying to use it would just result in a lot of missed shots.
> 
> ...


I use one for landscape shots where I’m doing a long exposure and/or using filters. As you say, it makes you put a bit more thought into the shot. 

I have a Manfrotto 055 too, plus a Manfrotto Elements for when I’m out waking. The latter is lighter, but not quite as sturdy.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 17, 2019)

neonwilderness said:


> I use one for landscape shots where I’m doing a long exposure and/or using filters. As you say, it makes you put a bit more thought into the shot.


It is interesting, I feel as if I haven't been so productive when I have fewer shots, but more of them are good so it is silly. 



neonwilderness said:


> I have a Manfrotto 055 too, plus a Manfrotto Elements for when I’m out waking. The latter is lighter, but not quite as sturdy.


Never seen an Elements, how high about is it? 

My 055 doesn't have a hook for hanging bags onto which is a shame, and I would really like a spirit level built into the tripod head. I never seem to get it very level which can make panos a bit of a slower thing as I have to level the camera at each shot.


----------



## neonwilderness (Dec 17, 2019)

weltweit said:


> It is interesting, I feel as if I haven't been so productive when I have fewer shots, but more of them are good so it is silly.


I prefer to take less shots, but to take more time with them. You end up thinking a bit more about things like composition. 



weltweit said:


> Never seen an Elements, how high about is it?


The elements is about 1.5m high when fully extended, but I usually use it a bit lower so it’s more sturdy.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 17, 2019)

neonwilderness said:


> I prefer to take less shots, but to take more time with them. You end up thinking a bit more about things like composition.


Yes, I agree, taking time is good. 



neonwilderness said:


> The elements is about 1.5m high when fully extended, but I usually use it a bit lower so it’s more sturdy.


I usually use my 055 fully extended with the centre column up perhaps 4-5 inches also. I like not to have to stoop to see into the VF. It seems stable enough. Perhaps I should vary, because it would give different view points, but well ..


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2019)

I've bought a couple but hardly ever, ever use them. Too much of a pain to lug about and set up, even though they are obviously very useful things.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 18, 2019)

Always think of these things first before I think of cameras. 
 
Even though I work with cameras almost every day in some form.


----------



## Nikkormat (Dec 18, 2019)

Now I only use a tripod when using my medium format TLR, or when I use my DSLR to photograph negatives. I don't find it necessary for normal digital photography.


----------



## girasol (Dec 18, 2019)

I have a tripod and don't use it all.  Then again, I also have a DSLR that barely gets any use   I blame smartphones and their cameras.  Last time I used my DSLR + tripod was to take passport picture at home, but even that can be done reasonably well with smartphones these days.

(although, of course, the passport photo taken with DSLR was of much better quality - but really it makes no difference, given the size of passports )


----------



## pogofish (Dec 18, 2019)

I trained in the era when 5x4 inch view and medium format cameras were the expected tools of the trade for most professional photographers.

As a result, I have a very strong back and an absolutely ambivalent relationship with tripods - Plus half a dozen fuckers of varying degrees of heavyness sitting in the store.

I use them as the job demands but personally I prefer to work handheld or with a monopod where at all possible.  Plus I now only rarely do the sort of technical stuff where a rock-solid optical bench is essential.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 18, 2019)

weltweit said:


> tbf that is a massive camera!



Gotta be a Sinar..!


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 18, 2019)

I use a tripod a lot. I think it's pretty essential if you're doing landscape or architectural photography. And doing 360° panoramas accurately is all but impossible without one.

When I used to do it professionally full-time I used a Manfrotto Triaut which weighed a ton (about 10kg with a 3-way head) but would easily take a Mamiya 6x7. I sold it recently.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 18, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> I use a tripod a lot. I think it's pretty essential if you're doing landscape or architectural photography. And doing 360° panoramas accurately is all but impossible without one.


RoyReed, do you have spirit levels on the top of your tripod legs? Because I don't and I never seem to be able to set the tripod legs so the mount for the head is dead flat. It has come to quite annoy me. I have a virtual horizon in my camera so I can level the camera in one dimension, but it always seems out in the other one and rotating the camera and trying again doesn't seem to help.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 18, 2019)

The only times I've used one have been:

* a gorillapod with a pinhole camera, which is reasonable if you can't find anywhere to prop it up;
* when attempting to get firework shots from my tiny balcony, which I just don't bother with now as they always come out shit anyway;
* doing long exposures of the Thames with an ND filter, and I just got bored of that before I'd even finished the roll.

They just don't fit the sort of photography I like to do. Even when I use longer shutter speeds, it's not in situations where a tripod would be practical. If I can't handhold it or prop it (or myself) up on something or use a higher ISO I don't bother.

With landscapes and architecture, having primes that are optically perfect wide open does help; you don't need to stop down for quality. LEICA lenses cost a bomb but that is kind of the point of them. The 21mm voigtlander that I have is like that too, though only goes down to f4 admittedly (and 21mm is not a good landscape f/l anyway IMO).


----------



## pogofish (Dec 18, 2019)

weltweit said:


> RoyReed, do you have spirit levels on the top of your tripod legs? Because I don't and I never seem to be able to set the tripod legs so the mount for the head is dead flat. It has come to quite annoy me. I have a virtual horizon in my camera so I can level the camera in one dimension, but it always seems out in the other one and rotating the camera and trying again doesn't seem to help.



The Triaut configuration I used had a centering spirit level on the tripod itself, with secondary spirit levels covering movement in two planes on the head - but the choices of head varied.

First you leveled the tripod as best you could, then adjusted the head so you had it level at all degrees of rotation.

Then if you were being utterly anal, you checked the levels on the front and back frames of the view camera before applying any amount of tilt!

These days, I am more likely just to use the electronic level/artificial horizon in the DSLR - which works pretty damn well for most things.

The last time I used levels for anything important was to produce consistent images of tight-packed pipework accurate enough to get measurements for making renovation/repair sleeves (somebody specified the wrong alloy grade!) and it was critical I had the camera perpendicular at all stages of the operation between the different bays of the apparatus. Also used the artificial horizon via HDMI output to a monitor as a belt and braces measure.

Took hours and with a team of scaffolders to help me raise the tripod platform up and down the apparatus but it worked and probably saved them a million or two!


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 18, 2019)

Yeah, like pogofish said, spirit levels on the top of the tripod and on the head. Same on my current tripod. I also used to have a spirit level I could plug into the hot shoe, and when I'm doing panoramas I use a small pocket level on the pano head as the one built into the head isn't accurate enough.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 18, 2019)

Yes, I used to have the hot shoe/pocket level in my bag as well, for different tripods/applications but these days they live on the workbench in my shed.

Agree that for serious architectural/apparatus work they were essentials but again it is less so these days with selectable viewfinder grids and the artificial horizon.

I did a large museum display installation recently with just that and a monopod, plus software correction on the various lenses - it looked as clinically/technically perfect as if I had got the view camera back-out again.

But the shots they published most were the ones where I got the fisheye out and started crawling around on the floor to maximise the graphic/dramatic effect.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2019)

I'd say the vast improvement in high ISO performance and image stabilisation has made tripods redundant for many.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 18, 2019)

editor said:


> I'd say the vast improvement in high ISO performance and image stabilisation has made tripods redundant for many.


For many kinds of photography I agree, but for landscapes it is great to be able to select your lowest ISO and a deep fstop for loads of dof and just not worry about shutter speed at all.

When I am handholding I am always wary of my shutter speed, I don't have IS/VR.

I love how solid my tripod is. I can hear the clunk of my mirror and the shutter but I know my camera is solidly mounted.


----------



## neonwilderness (Dec 18, 2019)

It depends on the style of shot, but sometimes you can’t get the same sense of movement/stillness with a handheld shot.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 19, 2019)

RoyReed that set of three very nice images you just posted, I thought immediately you had used a tripod because you achieved a very pleasant and wide dof. More than was likely possible handheld.

Am I right in assuming you used your tripod for these?


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 19, 2019)

weltweit said:


> RoyReed that set of three very nice images you just posted, I thought immediately you had used a tripod because you achieved a very pleasant and wide dof. More than was likely possible handheld.
> 
> Am I right in assuming you used your tripod for these?


Actually only the first one of the Camel Estuary was done on a tripod. The one of the River Par there wasn't anywhere to place a tripod without having at least one of the legs in a foot of water (although I did have a tripod with me) and the Padstow lights was just a snap I took at 6400 ISO that turned out quite nice. All were shot on a 16mm lens (24mm equiv).


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 19, 2019)

I have a Manfrotto befree travel tripod - as I only use it for night photography I'm quite happy with it


----------



## weltweit (Dec 22, 2019)

If I was feeling profligate I would buy a large carbon fibre tripod. Someone I know has one and I am quite envious. He also has one of those swinging heads and a 600mm f4 lens so I think suffice to say he has invested a lot more into his hobby than I have into mine.


----------



## shaman75 (Jan 5, 2020)

I take a lot of pictures of buildings and use a tripod a lot.  This is mainly because I use a tilt shift lens, which has no autofocus, so I originally found it useful to do manual focus, using the screen on the back and zooming in.  It also helps getting the camera level, to keep the verticals, vertical and make it simpler to correct any verticals in lightroom, when I have to tilt the camera up to get the top of the building in the picture.  I use a 3 way head to get the camera level.  It's fiddly with a ball head.

I also prefer to shoot at iso100 whenever possible, as the noise quality is much better.  So the tripod allows much slower shutter speeds, which are usually too much for hand held shooting.  I often end up taking pictures in evenings too, because of better light and availability of time.  Sometimes I stay in one place and combine a few images to combine daylight, sunset, darkness/lights shots, so the tripod is fundamental to keeping everything lined up.

As well as all that, I was always hoping to upload any pictures to stock agencies, so detail, sharpness and focus were important.  I was a bit paranoid about getting rejected by quality control.

More recently, on sunny days, I have become better at getting focus on the tilt shift, without the screen and can keep the shutter speed short to hand hold.  Although it's pretty hard to keep things straight.  But less noticeable if the camera is tilted a bit anyway.  The advantages of this are avoiding hassle from security/ workers/ random people that comes with setting up a tripod and getting more images of more buildings in the available time.  However the light is obviously different at these times, which affects the final image and the images are often harder to edit than tripod produced ones and sometimes may not be as detailed or well balanced.

I also tried to mix up the tilt-shift with a 50mm, which is quite fast and has autofocus, so can work without a tripod, but more importantly get some closer images of parts of buildings and interesting perspectives.

Overall, I prefer to use a tripod, but I find a tripod attracts attention and makes it difficult to access some locations.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2020)

"Four travel tripods for every budget" says the headline. But then cheapest one is around £130!









						Tested: Four travel tripods for every budget
					

Although image stabilization technology has come a long way, there are few things you can do to improve your low-light or telephoto images more than using a tripod. In this roundup we take a look at four travel tripods and pick our favorite.




					www.dpreview.com


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2020)

"for every budget except yours"

The most I'd take when travelling would be a gorillapod (I got one cheap at a boot sale a few years ago) and even then it's not really that useful, except for pinhole cameras.


----------

