p.2 #1 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
adam613 wrote:
...and that combo is twice the OP's budget. Unfortunately, it's also the first step above the $30 tripods that provides any real increase in stability. It will do fine with a DSLR and a heavy normal or wide-angle lens...maybe even a 70-200 f/4 if you use a tripod collar and a remote shutter release.
Apologies - was scanning and mis-read. And I agree w/ your post.
Nov 29, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
wilsocn wrote:
Are there decent tripods to be had for around 100 that includes the head and legs?
p.2 #3 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
wilsocn wrote:
I have a T3i (600D) and my new lens which is the Canon 100-400mm is usm lens will be here tomorrow. It took me years to upgrade from a 150 dollar lens to a 1500 dollar lens so I would imagine that this will be my setup for the foreseeable future. Unless I start playing and then win the lottery. :|
I was worried you were going to say something like that. The problem with the 100-400 and tripods isn't so much the weight as the focal length. Longer lenses magnify vibrations, so the longer the lens, the sturdier the tripod you need; for your lens, any tripod/head combo that costs less than $200 is likely to be worse than no tripod at all. I'm not even sure what to suggest at double your price range...A Manfrotto 055XB/Manfrotto 498RC4 combo would be ok for long exposures under optimum conditions (no wind, stable surface, mirror lockup and a remote shutter release, focal length less than 300mm), and B&H is selling that kit for $237 after a mail-in rebate.
(And if you're not doing exposures longer than 1/50 sec, don't even bother with a tripod...just use the image stabilizer, shoot at 3fps, and you'll get some keepers.)
p.2 #4 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
Ouch - 100-400 is a big piece of glass. The issue is that you've got a lot of weight hanging - either the camera (mounted to the tripod via the foot on the lens) or the non-recommended mounting via the body (LOTS of unbalanced weight hanging forward).
I agree with Adam's recommendation. I'd start putting your pennies away for a sturdier tripod and head. The good news is everyone is so focused on CF these days that really solid old aluminum tripods can be had for good money. I haven't seen any reviews of the new Manfrotto Magnesium ball-heads (054/057), but they seem to have a great combination of load and usability for the money (but are still $200+).
If you shop used you could probably find a really great set of heavy-duty aluminum legs for ~$200 and grab a nice ball head - Decent, sturdy setup will wind up $400-$500.
p.2 #5 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
OK I see what you are saying so I will start to put some back for a heavy duty tripod. Hopefully by the time spring rolls around I can start looking seriously for one. Thanks everyone!
p.2 #6 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
wilsocn wrote:
OK I see what you are saying so I will start to put some back for a heavy duty tripod. Hopefully by the time spring rolls around I can start looking seriously for one. Thanks everyone!
You never told us what kind of photography you want a tripod for...that makes a difference in how heavy-duty your tripod needs to be!
p.2 #7 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
I photograph all over Mammoth Cave National Park. Nature is the best way to describe it. Some months its all things winged and furry and others its wildflowers and waterfalls. I use a GPS and bushwhack most of the time and sometimes over very steep ridges so it has to be somewhat portable. Non of the really cool stuff in this park has a trail leading to it since they are so cavecentric (and understandably so).
p.2 #8 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
if you are doing landscape and wildflowers with that lens, you need more than a $250 one with head, even at 100mm. better set your expectations realistically. you are looking at a good carbon fibre tripod equivalent to the Gitzo 2 series to get the weight and size down while being able to support that lens adequately at the long end. the only thing that will save you some money is to get a tripod that you know you will never extend the legs on so that it is more stable. the ball head needed to support that lens well at 400mm in calm conditions alone is going to be more than $250.
p.2 #9 · "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
I would look at a manfrotto 190x series. It would be a bit more than 100 after you buy a head, but there are a lot on the used market, they are fairly small for traveling, and if used wisely they are very stable.
