Re: "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups?
it\'s all relative. you may discover that with a better tripod that your same camera and lens is that much sharper suddenly, or that the 300 is sufficiently soft that you couldn\'t see the difference. without some sample pictures at 100% crop, it\'s impossible to tell. i had a couple of $100 tripods when i was starting out. even with a film body and a 200mm lens, the best tripods of that price class were adequate but the ball heads were not. frankly, for a 300m lens for wildlife shooting, i would rather hand hold or use a beanbag. much lighter and unless your technique is lousy, equal results. 300mm for landscapes would require a tripod but something more than the $100 class because the heads are inadequate.
Herb...
wilsocn wrote:
Thanks for the input, everyone. For the last 4 years I have used a cheap Dynex tripod for my dslr and the 300mm kit lens and I have never had an issue with it holding my current setup (around 2.3 lbs).
Nov 29, 2011 at 04:26 PM
Previous versions of HerbChong's message #10125666 « "in between" tripods. Are there decent alternatives to more expensive setups? »
