Tripod for starting out?

Im just getting into photography and realise that Im going to need a tripod. Can anyone suggest some options and price ranges? Its a hobby and I dont have a fortune to spend but would like to get something that will be decent.

Thanks

Redsnapper are good starting point at £60 for the RST-238 Tripod and RSH-24 head.

http://www.redsnapperuk.com/camera-accessories/RST-283___RSH-24_3-way_Head.html

The Q555 or Q666 are very decent for the money. Pretty compact as well.

What will you be using it for? Portraits? Wildlife? Stars/moon?

What will you be mounting on it?

I bought a Velbon for £18

Its actually alright, but it isn't very heavy and there isn't a hook to hang the bag on, so its not very good for slow shutter pictures in the wind.

Tripod is one thing i am glad I spent good money in the first place, and it's not even a great deal on the grand scheme of things. Manfrotto 055Pro, it was like £100 for the legs and then £50 for a head.

I've had it 15+ years now, it is actually my oldest piece of equipment, one piece I NEVER had an urge to upgrade. I mean I have another travel tripod made out of carbon fibre but the Manfrotto is here to stay for eternity, it will out live you and I.

Am in a similar boat for a first tripod. Only thing with me is that I want a reasonably light one for when I go hiking and wild camping (trekking with 12-13kg pack.) Doesn't need to support a lot of weight as it would be for an action cam and a compact camera such as an rx100. As long as it's steady for time lapse and long exposures shots.

I Have to agree with Raymond. I have had a velbon tripod in the past and had nothing but issues with it. I would move once I thought I had locked it in position. I changed to a Manfrotto (the same a Raymond) and you have the benefit of being able to change heads etc and it behaves perfectly. I have had mine well over 10 years and its still as good as new. You wont get that with a cheap tripod, and you will probably find you will buy the better one in the long run anyway.

Raymond Lin said:

Tripod is one thing i am glad I spent good money in the first place, and it's not even a great deal on the grand scheme of things. Manfrotto 055Pro, it was like £100 for the legs and then £50 for a head.

I've had it 15+ years now, it is actually my oldest piece of equipment, one piece I NEVER had an urge to upgrade. I mean I have another travel tripod made out of carbon fibre but the Manfrotto is here to stay for eternity, it will out live you and I.

Click to expand...

Yep, agree with this 100%. Tripod and heads are where you should definitely be throwing down the money as you ill get something which will last your lifetime. Moreover, most of the cheap and mid0range tripods just plain suck, with sloppy heads and wobbly legs.I am super happy with my Gitzo 3531S with RRS BH-50 head. These aren't at all budget options so I am not suggesting them necessarily, but I have had them over 7 years and will be still using them in another 27 years I expect.


A test for any tripod is to put on your longest FL lens and then tap the end of the lens. There should be no movement at all. In general, the key to a stable tripod is as few a leg sections as possible, and then should be as thick and strong as possible. No vertical head adjustment (that just amplified vibrations). Buy as short as possible. Heavier steel tripods offer far better stability at a fraction of the cost and are really the way to go for the budget conscious. For Photography you typically will want a ball head, pan-tilt work but are less user friendly and are designed for video in mind, however you can sometimes buy cheaper pan-tilt heads. You need to make sure that when your camera and lens are attached that when you tighten the head (normally a big knob to tighten the ball) there is zero movement and slop. Most cheaper once will sink down a little under the weight of the lens, especially a certain angles. It is unbelievably annoying when thus happens and it wont take long before you are back on the internet searching for something better.

Even if you don't plan on hiking with it don't discount weight and folded size. Too big and you'll be leaving it at home rather than taking it with you. The 055 is a great cheap(er) solid tripod, but it's also massive which means unless you're shooting a wedding (like Raymond for example) it's going to be left at home more often than not. My 055 was religated to a studio tripod after a while as it was just impractical (for example I struggled to fit it into a normal sized suitcase.)

Alternatives include something like the 190, which should hold pretty much anything you are likely to put on it at the beginning and is much smaller and lighter. If over 6' so it doesn't extend to head height but I put up with that as it's far more practical for every day outdoor/holiday use.

You'll probably find in the end that you'll end up with several tripods, each for different things - I have a 055pro for studio/ house stuff, a 190 for general outdoor stuff, a Mefoto Roadtrip for travel and a small tabletop style tripod for other bits and pieces.

The best tripod is the one you take with you - and the larger and heavier it is the less likely you are to take it with you. I'd rather a tripod that was slightly less stable (but still strong enough to take the lenses you want), than none at all.

FYI, I only take the 055P to places if i have my car with me, otherwise i have a carbon fibre tripod (which is NOT as sturdy), but do as a pinch.

gort said:

Am in a similar boat for a first tripod. Only thing with me is that I want a reasonably light one for when I go hiking and wild camping (trekking with 12-13kg pack.) Doesn't need to support a lot of weight as it would be for an action cam and a compact camera such as an rx100. As long as it's steady for time lapse and long exposures shots.

Click to expand...

Have a look at the Mefoto range, fairly expensive but worth it - especially the carbon versions.

I shoot with a 120-300 f/2.8 on it sometimes (when on "lightweight" holidays) and while it's not the most ideal tripod for that sort of weight it handles it fine (it's actually right on the weight limit with that setup). For a normal setup, especially with smaller cameras it will be more than enough and it's very light and lacks down small. The heads that come with them are quite nice as well.

Thanks for the responses to this thread, I'll take a look through the recommendations and see how far my budget can stretch! I'll be using it with a Xt-10 so relatively light weight compared to some of the DSLRs out there.

Mark M said:

Thanks for the responses to this thread, I'll take a look through the recommendations and see how far my budget can stretch! I'll be using it with a Xt-10 so relatively light weight compared to some of the DSLRs out there.

Click to expand...

It is not so much the weight but the effective focal length of the longest lens that is important. If you are shooting wider angle landscapes then you can get away with much less

Amp34 said:

Even if you don't plan on hiking with it don't discount weight and folded size. Too big and you'll be leaving it at home rather than taking it with you. The 055 is a great cheap(er) solid tripod, but it's also massive which means unless you're shooting a wedding (like Raymond for example) it's going to be left at home more often than not. My 055 was religated to a studio tripod after a while as it was just impractical (for example I struggled to fit it into a normal sized suitcase.)

Alternatives include something like the 190, which should hold pretty much anything you are likely to put on it at the beginning and is much smaller and lighter. If over 6' so it doesn't extend to head height but I put up with that as it's far more practical for every day outdoor/holiday use.

You'll probably find in the end that you'll end up with several tripods, each for different things - I have a 055pro for studio/ house stuff, a 190 for general outdoor stuff, a Mefoto Roadtrip for travel and a small tabletop style tripod for other bits and pieces.

The best tripod is the one you take with you - and the larger and heavier it is the less likely you are to take it with you. I'd rather a tripod that was slightly less stable (but still strong enough to take the lenses you want), than none at all.

Click to expand...

This is where a monopod comes in, much lighter than a tripod and of the tripod isn't stable enough then there is really not much advantage over a tripod for long lens work. For wider angle work then a decent bean-bag on the backpack provides great stability at low weight and low cost.

Amp34 said:

Have a look at the Mefoto range, fairly expensive but worth it - especially the carbon versions.

I shoot with a 120-300 f/2.8 on it sometimes (when on "lightweight" holidays) and while it's not the most ideal tripod for that sort of weight it handles it fine (it's actually right on the weight limit with that setup). For a normal setup, especially with smaller cameras it will be more than enough and it's very light and lacks down small. The heads that come with them are quite nice as well.

Click to expand...

Cheers for that, think I've settled on the Backpacker Air. Looks durable and is compact enough for me to stick in my rucksack and also has an integrated self stick! That'll do I think.

Ta

D.P. said:

This is where a monopod comes in, much lighter than a tripod and of the tripod isn't stable enough then there is really not much advantage over a tripod for long lens work. For wider angle work then a decent bean-bag on the backpack provides great stability at low weight and low cost.

Click to expand...

I've never got on with a monopod, I just find it easier and get as good results with good hand held technique.

Something like the 190 will be perfectly good enough for pretty much any lens you can throw at it - excluding the fast long lenses that cost thousands (and even then it's better than a monopod).

I've got a carbon fibre tripod that works well, with a removable leg to convert into a monopod a will be putting up for sale soon, for not much money.

Amp34 said:

Something like the 190 will be perfectly good enough for pretty much any lens you can throw at it - excluding the fast long lenses that cost thousands (and even then it's better than a monopod).

Click to expand...

Our experiences with the 190 differ somewhat. I found it extremely susceptible to the slightest vibration. Usable, just, at low height but truly dreadful fully extended.

It was my first tripod used with a modest 30D and 70-300 f/4-5.6. Relegated it to reflector holder duty.

Cheap tripods can be good if you don't mind weight. I like weight so ended up with Uniloc Major. The good thing about cheap heavy tripods is they're even cheaper when the muscularly disadvantaged sell them on.

Amp34 said:

I've never got on with a monopod, I just find it easier and get as good results with good hand held technique.

Something like the 190 will be perfectly good enough for pretty much any lens you can throw at it - excluding the fast long lenses that cost thousands (and even then it's better than a monopod).

Click to expand...

Not in my experience, the small light cheap tripods just don't cut it and you end up with soft photos. With a monopod you are already committing to using suitable shutter speeds and it helps stabilize things a lot, removing the high-frequency movements which is what robs sharpness. Furthermore, the degrees of freedom relate to rotations which the optical stabilization does a very good job of eliminating. For heavy lenses it is useful to have something take the weight.