Tripods - how sturdy does it need to be?

[Daniel Browning]

Are you saying that the sharpness of my shots in general will be very different if I use gitzo 3 series or manfrotto? Well, I know it'll be different, but dramatically different? Since the Gitzo is 3x more expensive, is it 3x better? Is it that big of a deal? [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img]

It's not 3X better -- the returns diminish the more and more you spend on the tripod. Going from no tripod to a $30 plastic junky one is the biggest improvement. From $30 to $90 is also a big improvement, but not as big as going from no tripod at all. Then $90 to $300 is another big deal, but again not as big as $30 to $90. Then $300 to $900 gets you something that is good enough for most conditions. $2700 will get you the best. In each case the returns diminish.


That said, the difference can be dramatic, but it really depends on the circumstances. I can get much sharper pictures with a $300 lens and a $5000 tripod than a $5000 lens and a $300 tripod.


Consider that a good tripod can last 30 or 40 years.

[mpphoto12]

save some money and buy a reallllyyy scratched up gitzo that is worth like 800 dollars new and by it for like 300 dollars thats what i did. I got a gitzo reporter (not made anymore) for 120 dollars when new they are around 700 plus a brand new ballhead... they work the same as long as there are no dents in the frame...

[Bombsight]

I wish somebody would come up with a chart rating where each tripod on the market stood when stability and load are considerd.


I have a Slik Pro 700DX. I feel like its really solid. But when somebody says a $300- $1000 pod is whats needed .... I still wonder.


Just how does a Slik Pro 700DX stand up to one twice or three times its cost?[^o)]

[Keith B]

I rarely use a tripod except for interiors and the occasional landscape. Then it usually just supporting a 5DmkII and a 16-35II lens.


I have a Manfrotto 190XPROB and 488RC0 ball head. Together cost about $300. I used it to shoot a shuttle launch with 5DII and 100-400 extended out to 400 and it was very stable. I know it's not the best, but very capable of serving my needs.

[bob williams]

I can get much sharper pictures with a $300 lens and a $5000 tripod than a $5000 lens and a $300 tripod.

As usual, Mr Browning makes "the point". I have recently found his point to be the case and decided to spend as much on a tripod/ballhead as I would on an "L" series lens.


A test---(I know, some of you have read this before, but perhaps this member hasn't)


1. Set up on your current tripod with your longest lens. ---2. Go to Live view (If Available)and magnify times 10.---- 3. Manually focus on some distant object---like a business card, or something else that will show detail. 4. If you observe vibration, get a bettertripod.


I found this to be a problem with a $200 Bogan aluminum tripod so, after a little research and lots of questions, I realized that a High quality tripod and ball head was next on the wish list, even though there are several lenses that are in my sights.

[Brendan7]

good to know.


I've decided that although a good tripod may be expensive, I am now convinced it's worth it. I have two options for tripods:


Gitzo GT3531s - gitzo systematic 3 series tripod. supports 40 lbs, carbon fiber (duh), minimum height 4'', $680


Benro C-358m8 - 8 layer carbon fiber tripod, supports 40lbs, minimum height 15'', $460.





The benro looks like a quality, cheaper alternative. any thoughts?


The gitzo is 3-section, the benro is 4-section. Will this affect stability?





thanks to everyone for their help


brendan

[freelanceshots]

A tripod with three sections per a leg will typically be more sturdy because of the size of the individual tubes. The downside to three legs instead of four is it will have a greater folded up height so it will be a little more cumbersome to carry around.

[Daniel Browning]

A tripod with three sections per a leg will typically be more sturdy because of the size of the individual tubes. The downside to three legs instead of four is it will have a greater folded up height so it will be a littl more cumbersome to carry around.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. It's even possible to get legs with just 2 segments or even just 1. The latter tend to only be on the used market. Tripods from the good old days could be pretty big because photographers back then weren't a bunch of namby pambies like we are now. []

[Keith B]

because photographers back then weren't a bunch of namby pambies like we are now. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

Heard that!

[Fred Doane]

Tripods from the good old days could be pretty big because photographers back then weren't a bunch of namby pambies like we are now. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

I think photographers back then if given the option of tripods that collapsed to 1/4 of the fully extended size and less then 1/2 their weight and still supported there camera the same would have gone with the ones we use today but thats just what I think []